Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely—

Marlow Water Bill [Lords].

Folkestone and District Electricity Bill [Lords].

Sharpness Docks and Gloucester and Birmingham Navigation Bill [Lords].

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation (Quay Extension) Bill [Lords].

Golders Green (Jewish) Burial Ground Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),—

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petitions for the following Bills, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely—

Boston Corporation [Lords].

Bournemouth Corporation [Lords].

Reports referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Private Bills (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),—

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the
following Bill the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Southern Railway Bill.

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Address for
Return showing the number of accidents resulting in death or personal injury in which vehicles and horses were concerned and known by the police to have occurred in streets, roads, or public places, together with the number of persons killed or injured by such accidents in Great Britain during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1934 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 58, of Session 1933–34)."—[Captain Crookshank.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SMALLHOLDERS.

Sir IAN MACPHERSON: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered representations from smallholders under the Department of Agriculture in connection with their financial obligations to the Department; and whether, seeing that these obligations are now so onerous as to make living on their holdings impossible in many cases, he is prepared to consider measures of relief under statutory authority which could be administered by the Scottish Land Court who know all the circumstances?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. On the information before me I have no reason to think it necessary to invite the Land Court to undertake a special revision of the holder's obligations, but if my right hon. and learned Friend will send me par-
ticulars of any cases he has in mind I shall be glad to examine the matter further.

Sir I. MACPHERSON: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he does not consider that it is now necessary to have a Royal Commission appointed to consider the working of the Acts relating to small landholders in Scotland over the last 50 years?

Sir G. COLLINS: Not at the moment. As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, the Land Court is there charged with the duty of revising the rents and the annuities of these individuals. It is true that these individuals have to pay sums for their sheep-stocks, but as my right hon. and learned Friend is aware, there is at present a moratorium in respect of sheep stocks in Skye which comes up again for review in October, 1935.

SPECIAL AREAS (COMMISSIONER).

Captain SHAW: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made in Glasgow by the commissioner for the special areas in Scotland as to his activities; and whether, as Parliament is directly responsible for the appointment of commissioners for these areas, he can make an official statement as to how the work of the Scottish commissioner is developing?

Sir G. COLLINS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on Tuesday last to a question by the right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), of which I am sending him a copy.

LOSS OF FISHERY CRUISER "RONA."

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the fishery cruiser "Rona" was sunk within the exclusive fishery limit of Scotland; if not, where was she sunk in the open sea; and whether he is satisfied that she now lies in such a position that she does not interfere with the
legitimate trawl-fishing operations of British fishermen?

Sir G. COLLINS: The fishery cruiser "Rona" was sunk in the North Minch outside the exclusive fishery limit in 60 fathoms of water at a spot where owing to the rocky nature of the bottom, trawling cannot be carried on.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CANADA (BRITISH TEXTILES).

Mr. HANNON: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has been in communication with the Canadian Government regarding the complaints made in Canada that exporters of textiles from this country to Canada are declaring those goods on Canadian Customs invoices at less than cost price; and whether the Canadian Customs authorities in the case of those goods disregard the fair market valuation?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I have seen statements in the Press that complaints have been made of the character to which my hon. Friend refers, but my right hon. Friend has received no complaints himself, nor has he had any communication with the Canadian Government. With regard to the second part of the question, I have no information to the effect suggested.

Mr. HANNON: Is the House to understand then that trade relations between this country and Canada, in textiles, are proceeding very satisfactorily?

Mr. MacDONALD: As far as we are officially informed, that is the case.

RETAIL DISTRIBUTION.

Mr. MABANE: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet had a further opportunity to study the suggestions made by the president of the Incorporated Association of Retail Distributors with regard to the institution of an inquiry into the matter of retail distribution; and, if so, whether he is yet in a position to announce that any sort of inquiry is to be set up?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The answer to the first part is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I see no reason to modify the view which I have already expressed in answer to similar questions by my hon. Friend.

Mr. MABANE: Is the House then to assume that the Government are entirely satisfied that no undue profiteering is going on in the retail trade; and may we also assume that no further statements will be made from the Front Bench to the effect that distributors are taking too high a rate of profit on the goods?

BRAZIL (DRAFT AGREEMENT).

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now say whether, in the agreement which is being negotiated with Brazil, arrangements will be made for the provision of exchange relating to goods cleared prior to 7th April, 1934, in respect of which shippers are not covered by deposit of milreis?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. I am not yet in a position to add anything to the replies which I gave to the hon. Member on this subject on 7th and 19th March. The Brazilian Cabinet has approved the agreement, but it has not yet been signed.

Mr. FOOT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to when the terms of the agreement are likely to be made public?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will take the earliest possible opportunity of making them public, on the signing of the agreement, but until it is signed I had rather not go into the details.

CRAYFISH IMPORTS, FRANCE.

Mr. PETHERICK: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the serious state of the crayfishing industry; and whether he will again approach the French Government with the object of obtaining the removal of the quota on crayfish, in view of the fact that France can easily take all the crayfish which the fishermen of this country can offer them?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am conscious of the difficulties of the crayfishing industry and I shall continue to take any possible steps to secure further facilities for exports to France.

Mr. PETHERICK: Is the right hon. Gentleman at present engaged in negotiations with the French Government on this matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would not like to call these communications "negotiations," but my hope is that a suitable arrangement may emerge from them.

JAPANESE COMPETITION.

Captain STRICKLAND: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will inform the House as to the current rates of wages per day now being paid to female silk and hosiery workers in Japan; whether these rates are subject to deductions for maintenance; how these compare with wages paid in the United Kingdom; and whether he will consider measures for the more efficient protection of our workers in those industries?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: According to statistics issued by the Japanese Ministry of Commerce and Industry the average daily earnings of female silk and hosiery workers in Japan range from about 8d. to 1s. 5d., and these rates are said to include food allowances, bonuses for quality and output, overtime and night work, but not seasonal payments, payments during unemployment or sickness, retiring or discharge allowances, clothing and lodging allowances, etc. I am informed that the time rate of wages for female workers in the silk industry at Leek and Macclesfield range from 28s. to 31s. 6d. per week of 48 hours, but that no corresponding figure can be given for the hosiery industry, it being understood that the majority of the workers are paid at piece rates of wages, and particulars as to their average earnings are not available. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the replies which I gave to the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) on 13th November and 14th March last.

Captain STRICKLAND: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him whether he does not consider that this is a matter of urgency and one that ought to be dealt with immediately in order to protect our people against the ever-increasing flood of Japanese goods in the competitive markets in which our goods have to be sold?

Mr. CAPORN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any doubt that the wages paid to our hosiery workers are far in excess of those paid in Japan?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I can express no doubt about those facts, but they ought to be brought out before the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is paid to the women working in the mines in India to-day?

CARPETS AND RUGS (EXPORTS TO EGYPT).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the figures of the exports of carpets and rugs from this country to Egypt for each of the last five years?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am having a statement prepared, which I will send to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

HIS MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE (IMPORTED MEDALS AND BADGES).

Mr. HANNON: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has had the opportunity of inspecting a sample of the crude medals imported into this country from foreign countries for sale in connection with the celebration of His Majesty's Silver Jubilee; and whether any measures will be immediately adopted to prevent these misrepresentations of Their Majesties being put into circulation during the forthcoming period of national rejoicing?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is no power under the existing law to take the action suggested with regard to the articles of which my hon. Friend has sent to me a specimen.

Mr. HANNON: Has the right hon. Gentleman examined these specimens; and does he not think that it is a wholly discreditable thing that our people should be asked to honour Their Majesties on this occasion by wearing such medals?

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the manufacturers in the city of Birmingham are in a position to make all the medals that are required?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no doubt that that is so, and I hope that those who purchase medals will see to it that they purchase and wear the products of British industry.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: If this accusation is correct, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ascertain who are importing these medals?

Mr. HANNON: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the case of medals, badges and other foreign articles imported into this country for sale during the period of celebration of His Majesty's Silver Jubilee there is no indication of the country of origin; and whether any action is contemplated to compel importers of these articles to comply with the law?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Many classes of imported goods are required to bear an indication of origin by virtue of the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Acts or Orders in Council made thereunder. No, such Order has been applied for with regard to medals and badges. Consequently, imported medals and badges are only required to bear an indication of origin if they have applied to them any name or trade mark being or purporting to be the name or trade mark of any manufacturer, dealer, or trader, or the name of any place or district in the United Kingdom, or if they bear any trade description which is calculated to mislead as to the origin of the goods. As regards the last part of the question, I shall be happy to look into any case where the existing law is not being complied with if my hon. Friend will give me the necessary information.

Mr. HANNON: Is the House to understand that articles of this shoddy character can come into this country, for the purpose for which these medals are being imported, without any indication of the country of origin unless those steps are taken here?

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider imposing a prohibitive tariff on these things?

RUSSIA.

Mr. T. SMITH: 35.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has received any report from His Majesty's ambassador or commercial attaché in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the progress of collective farming and the development of industrial production in the Union?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow reports periodically upon these subjects in the normal course of his duty.

RADIO GOODS (MARKING).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade by what date it is anticipated that an Order will be brought into force implementing the recommendations of the Standing Committee under the Merchandise Marks Act, with regard to the marking of radio goods imported into this country, which were published in September last?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: This Order was made on 21st February, and will come into force on the 21st August.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

COAST LIGHTS.

Mr. RANKIN: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of watched lights, unwatched lights, and lighted buoys that failed during the last six months under the administration of Trinity House, Northern Lights, and Irish Lights, respectively?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed by the authorities mentioned that the number of failures or partial failures which occurred in their services during the past six months is respectively as follows:

Trinity House:


21
watched lights.


2
unwatched lights.


28
lighted buoys.


Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses:


12
unwatched lights.


9
lighted buoys.


Commissioners of Irish Lights:


1
watched light.


10
unwatched lights.


23
lighted buoys.

STEAMSHIP "MAURETANIA" (SALE).

Sir PERCY HARRIS: 44.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the proposed sale of the Royal Mail Steamship "Mauretania" has any relation to the Government subsidy to the Royal Mail Steamship "Queen Mary"; and
whether the Government approves the sale to foreign buyers of this famous ship?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The sale of the vessel in question, if effected, would have no relation to the assistance granted by the Government under the North Atlantic Shipping Act. The terms and conditions of any such sale would be a matter for the decision of the board of the company in the ordinary course of business.

Sir P. HARRIS: Are we to understand that shipowners can sell their ships to foreigners, but cannot buy back British ships from foreigners without the permission of the Government?

BRITISH SHIPPING (ASSISTANCE).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what publication he anticipates will be made in connection with the application by owners of tramp shipping for a grant of any part of the Government subsidy; and whether, apart from the mere announcement of the grant made, there will be issued some detailed information as to the circumstances under which the grant is made?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No payments have yet been made under Part I of the British Shipping (Assistance) Act, 1935. I am at present considering in what form information regarding the distribution of the subsidy should be published.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREST HOLDINGS.

Colonel ROPNER: 18.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether he can make any statement which would indicate in general terms the various reasons which have led forest smallholders who have vacated their holdings to give up this work; and whether, in particular, he can say if smallholders who have vacated their holdings have for the most part done so on account of success or failure?

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): Forest workers under the Commission who have vacated their holdings have done so for various reasons, that is to say, return to
former occupation on revival of industry, transfer on promotion, illhealth and their domestic reasons. Few have been unsuccessful with their holdings.

Colonel ROPNER: 19.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what proportion of original tenants still occupy their forest smallholdings?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: Sixty-nine per cent. of original tenants of Commission workers' holdings still occupy their holdings.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give the reasons why the 31 per cent. left their holdings?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: I have just done so. Several have gone back to their former occupations owing to the revival of industry which was temporarily in suspense. A good many have left the district because they have been promoted in the forestry service. One man left because his wife was disappointed to find that there was not a tram line opposite the holdings.

Colonel ROPNER: 20.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for Eye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what is the percentage of the number of tenants of forest smallholdings who have given up this work because of lack of success to make a living?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: The number of tenants of commission workers' holdings who have given up forestry work because of lack of success to make a living is negligible, as the majority of the tenants are employed full time in the forest.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how many of these forest holdings there are?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: About 1,250.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY CHARGES, NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE AND DARLINGTON.

Mr. BATEY: 22.
asked the Minister of Transport the prices per unit charged to domestic consumers by the privately owned Newcastle-on-Tyne Electric Supply Company and the municipally owned Darlington Corporation?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Owing to the different tariffs in operation in different parts of the respective areas of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Company and the Corporation of Darlington, it is difficult to furnish comparable figures of the prices per unit charged to domestic consumers, especially as these two supply authorities frame their tariffs on different bases. I will, however, send the hon. Member a statement which will, I hope, give him the information he requires.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR INSURANCE (KNOCK-FOR-KNOCK SYSTEM).

Mr. REMER: 23.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the dangers and road accidents caused by the knock-for-knock system adopted by the insurance companies; and whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that in the case of every accident an inquiry shall be held to decide which is the guilty party, and that only the insurance record of the guilty party shall be debited with the damages incurred and the guilty party shall in such cases be made to pay for those damages out of his own pocket?

Mr. HOREBELISHA: As legislation would be required to give effect to my hon. Friend's suggestion, I should require to be convinced, before introducing it, that the knock-for-knock system did in fact diminish the incentive to be careful in the mind of the individual motorist.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the abolition of the knock-for-knock system would mean a tremendous increase in insurance premium owing to the rise in accidents?

Mr. REMER: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that If he adopted the suggestion in the last part of the question it would mean a reduction in premiums, because it would bring down the number of accidents?

Mr. CAPORN: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the effect of demanding that the individual owner shall bear the first £5 of any damage to his own car in accidents?

Mr. THORNE: Will the Minister consider the advisability of starting an insurance department of his own?

BUILT-UP AREAS (SPEED LIMIT).

Mr. REMER: 24.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will give consideration to places where the signs indicating the 30-miles speed limit are placed in unreasonable situations; and whether, after due consideration, he will make representations to the local authorities upon this matter and, if necessary, give instructions where these speed limits are to be imposed?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am using all my influence to secure uniformity and to meet the convenience of all users of the road in this matter, and I have already asked a number of local authorities to consider the de-restriction of roads on which a speed limit does not appear to me to be required. I would, however, remind my hon. Friend that I have no authority to impose my will upon local authorities except after the holding of a local inquiry.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case where a Mr. Ellerd-Styles, on 20th March, was overtaking a police car travelling at, approximately, 24 miles per hour, when the police car accelerated to 30 miles per hour, thus creating a dangerous situation; and will he instruct the traffic police that they will be liable to prosecution if they pursue this method of driving?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): My attention has been drawn to a complaint which appeared in the Press, but I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that it has not been possible to trace the incident referred to. I should agree, of course, that the action described would be indefensible as a means of enforcing the speed limit and contrary to the Highway Code. If particulars can be given, further inquiries will be made.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: If I give my right hon. Friend the number of the police car will he make further inquiries?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Certainly.

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING-PLACES (AUTOMATIC SIGNALS).

Mr. TINKER (for Mr. PARKINSON): 28.
asked the Home Secretary whether any accidents have occurred at crossings in Trafalgar Square since the erection of the new automatic signals for pedestrians; and, if so, the nature of them?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Signal indications to pedestrians were brought into use in connection with the automatic traffic signals at the north-east corner of Trafalgar Square on the 26th February last. I am informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that during the time they have been in operation, no accidents have occurred on the crossings at which they are installed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (ENGLISH-BORN INDIAN TEACHERS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 25.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware of the difficulties experienced by English-born Indians who endeavour to secure appointment as teachers in the country of their birth; and whether he will circularise education authorities advising that merit alone should count when appointments are being made?

Sir WALTER WOMERSLEY (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The appointment of teachers is a matter which is in the hands of local education authorities, or other bodies responsible for the management of the schools, and my Noble Friend is not aware that any considerations other than the general suitability of the applicants are taken into consideration in making an appointment. He therefore does not consider it necessary to circularise authorities.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the Parliamentary Secretary that information can be brought to his notice where English-born Indians, who passed through Oxford and acquired the necessary qualifications, have applied to 98 education authorities and have found it impossible to get an appointment? Will he also inform the Parliamentary Secretary that in all the 10 Provinces of
India there are European directors of education and no English-born Indians in those posts?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: I will refer my hon. Friend to the report of that speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (JUNIOR INSTRUCTION CENTRES).

Mr. TINKER: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour how many junior instruccion centres there are in Lancashire; and the number of juveniles attending these centres in Wigan, Leigh, and St. Helens?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Twenty-eight junior instruction centres and classes are open in Lancashire. The average daily attendance during the week ending 13th March was: At Wigan 324, at Leigh 77, and at St. Helens 134. Schemes in all three boroughs for the provision of substantial additional accommodation are in active preparation.

Mr. TINKER: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any local authorities provide a free meal to students who put in full-time attendance at junior instruction centres; and whether such expenditure is recognised as authorised expenditure and recoverable from the Treasury?

Mr. STANLEY: I am advised that local education authorities have no power to provide meals for unemployed boys and girls attending junior instruction centres. The latter part of the question accordingly does not arise. I may add that milk may be supplied at cheap rates, as in schools, under the milk marketing scheme. In England and Wales, milk may be supplied free as medical treatment.

Mr. TINKER: As these instruction centres are now part of the policy of every Government, cannot something be done on the lines of the system of meals for school children for those attending the centres?

Mr. STANLEY: That question raises important points which have been under consideration, but I do not think that I can deal with them by way of question and answer.

Mr. PALING: Is it not usual for the Ministry of Labour and the Education Department to lay the blame for these difficulties on one another, and in view of the recommendation of one of the commissioners, cannot the Departments get together and overcome the obstacle?

Mr. STANLEY: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I are always together.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIFT ACCIDENTS.

Mr. THORNE: 29.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from one of his factory inspectors in connection with a serious, lift accident at the building of Lloyds Register in Fenchurch Street, London, when the lift man had his foot crushed; whether he is satisfied that the lift was in proper working order; and whether he can state what was the cause of the accident?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I informed the hon. Member in reply to a question yesterday, cases of this kind do not come under the Factory Acts. I will, however, have inquiry made about this accident and communicate with the hon. Member later.

Mr. THORNE: In consequence of the number of accidents in connection with private lifts, does not the right hon. Gentleman think he has sufficient power to bring them within the scope of the Factory Act?

Oral Answers to Questions — CORONERS' INQUESTS POST-MORTEM EXAMINATIONS).

Mr. GROVES: 31.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction existing in certain areas, especially East Ham, concerning the policy of the coroner in employing for all post-mortem examinations one particular pathologist; whether he is aware that it has always been the practice hitherto, apart from exceptional criminal cases, for the general practitioner attending the case to be called upon either to perform the post-mortem examination or at least to be present when such is made; and whether he will take whatever action is necessary to ensure that general practitioners are not denied this valuable pathological experience?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Since the passing of the Coroners (Amendment) Act, 1926, it has been open to a coroner to request any legally qualified medical practitioner to make a post-mortem examination and I have no power to interfere in any way with the discretion which is conferred on the coroner by statute.

Mr. GROVES: Could the right hon. Gentleman, while not interfering, give the requisite advice to the coroner in this area not to continue this obvious injustice?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

CATTLE DISEASES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 32.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what action has been taken by his Department and the Ministry of Health to implement the recommendations of the committee on cattle diseases; how many county authorities have appointed veterinary inspectors; and in what other direction efforts towards improvement have taken place?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): The report raises many issues involving large administrative questions, several of which are still being worked upon by the departments concerned. Two particular measures of importance affecting the matters concerned, of which I hope the facts will be far-reaching, have recently been or will shortly be brought into action, namely, the scheme of the Milk Marketing Board for a roll of accredited producers which comes into operation on the 1st May and the Government's attested herds schemes which came into operation on the 1st February. In England and Wales county authorities have appointed 70 whole-time veterinary inspectors, and in addition 538 part-time. The majority of these were appointed for duties under the Diseases of Animals Acts; but they are available also for other duties if required. 21 out of the 70 whole-time veterinary inspectors have been appointed since the 1st April last.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many county authorities have not veterinary officers and in how many counties no inspections are taking place?

Mr. ELLIOT: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question, I will try to give him the information.

HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS (IMPORTED FOODSTUFFS).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider making it compulsory for all hotels and restaurants which supply imported meat, poultry, eggs, etc., to notify this fact on their menus, distinguishing between foreign and Empire produce?

Mr. ELLIOT: As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend in reply to a somewhat similar question put by him on 31st May, 1934, I am afraid that legislation to give effect to his suggestion would not be practicable.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: If my right hon. Friend cannot take action on those lines, can he encourage hotel proprietors who do supply British produce to state that fact on the menu, which would force others to do the same?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am sure the custom of one individual more or less would not be very important, but, if every Member of the House were to act in this matter, I am sure it would have a good effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 34.
asked the hon. Member for Ipswich as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee whether he can assure the House that Home-produced eggs only are used in all cakes, buns, etc., supplied in the refreshment rooms?

Sir JOHN GANZONI: The eggs used for all purposes in the dining and refreshment rooms of this House are British National Mark. The cakes and buns, however, are bought from a contractor and I am unable therefore to give a similar assurance concerning them.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that they do use British eggs?

Sir J. GANZONI: That will be considered at the next meeting.

Oral Answers to Questions — RURAL WATER SUPPLIES.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 37.
asked the Minister of Health how many schemes for improving rural water supplies are to be undertaken during the current year; what is the approximate cost of these schemes; and whether he can provide a list of those schemes which are being held up through the inability of the promoters to obtain sufficient financial assistance from the Government?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): It is estimated that schemes for 1,200 parishes at a total cost of about £3,500,000 will be undertaken during the current year. My right hon. Friend is not aware of any scheme which is being held up for the reason stated.

Mr. SMITH: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he realises that should we have a dry summer and autumn, as last year, there will still be many villages without a supply of pure water?

Sir PARK GOFF: May I ask how the capital value of those works compares with the figure of previous years?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: In answer to the first supplementary question, every local authority in a rural district has had the right to apply to us for financial assistance, and, if it has not done so, we cannot be held responsible. As regards the second question, the figure of capital works in rural districts will be very nearly four times the record figure in any postwar year.

Mr. CHORLTON: May I ask what contribution the Ministry are making—not the total cost of the schemes?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The individual contribution varies in each case. About a half of the total grant has now been paid.

Oral Answers to Questions — BLIND PERSONS ACT.

Mr. GROVES: 38.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the practice in some areas to place blind unemployable persons in receipt of domiciliary assistance in the same category at 65 years of age as sighted persons, and therefore assume that further assistance and care is not an obligation; and, as this method transgresses
the principles of the Blind Persons Act of 1920 that an unemployable blind person means a person not employed who is incapable of employment in an economic sense and is not under training or capable of being trained, will he make it clear to local authorities that, as blind persons over 50 years of age are not normally capable of being trained, there is no need to treat them on such a basis?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. My right hon. Friend has, however, information of one area in which blind persons who have not applied, and been found eligible, for assistance before reaching the age of 70, are not assisted under the Blind Persons Act. My right hon. Friend endeavoured to dissuade the local authority from making this rule but it is a matter within their discretion.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL DEFENCE (WHITE PAPER).

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: 42.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Dominion Governments were consulted before the Defence White Paper was issued?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): A full summary of the position, as set out in the White Paper, was communicated to His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions before its publication.

Mr. BEVAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to tell the House what were the observations of the Dominion Governments on the White Paper, and did they reach the right hon. Gentleman before the White Paper was published? Are we not entitled to an answer? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Is not the attitude of the Dominion Governments towards this matter of high Imperial policy of interest to everybody in the Empire and in Great Britain, and ought we not to know it?

Mr. PALING: Are we to understand that all that was communicated to the Dominion Governments was the terms of the White Paper itself, and that they were not consulted as to what the terms should be?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have answered that.

Mr. BEVAN: Are we not entitled to have from the Prime Minister a straightforward reply—

Mr. SPEAKER: rose—

Mr. MAXTON: There has been no answer.

Mr. SPEAKER: The question on the Paper was answered.

Mr. MAXTON: Surely when one supplementary question is asked on an important matter of this sort there is nothing improper in asking for an answer to it?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. MAXTON: I was not raising a point of Order. I rose to press for an answer to a supplementary question?

Oral Answers to Questions — BEER DUTY.

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: 43.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of revenue received from the taxation of beer brewed in Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the 11 months ending 31st March, 1931, and for the 11 months ending 31st March, 1935?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Figures as to the Beer Duty Revenue in the current month are not yet available; but I can give my hon. Friend the figures for the 11 months ended 28th February in the years mentioned, which are as follow:

£


Eleven months ended 28th February, 1931
65,040,000


Eleven months ended 28th February, 1935
50,130,000

Oral Answers to Questions — HIS MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 45.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what arrangements are being made for leave and payment to unestablished civil servants on the occasion of the forthcoming Jubilee?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on the 28th January by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne). The arrangements therein described will apply to unestablished civil servants.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINING OPERATIONS (SUBSIDENCES).

Mr. WILLIAM ALLEN: 4.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether it has been brought to his notice that serious injury is being caused to owners of house property and building societies who have advanced money on mortgage of such property, and local authorities engaged on building schemes, by subsidence caused by mining operations; and if he proposes to take any action in the matter?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I am aware that damage has been caused to house property in certain localities by mining subsidence, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the Royal Commission which investigated this problem held the view that, except in the case of a very limited class of small private dwelling house, "owners should" (I am quoting from the commission's report) "themselves be left to bear the results of subsidence consciously faced and largely capable of being guarded against." With regard to the last part of the question, I do not know of any action that can be taken, short of legislation, and I am afraid that I cannot hold out any hope of that at present.

Mr. ALLEN: Is my hon. friend aware that in the Potteries district a great deal of damage has been done to small dwelling-houses which come within the ambit of those described by the Commission?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the Royal Commission reported on this subject recently and were unanimously in favour of certain legislation which would meet the case, and may I ask whether there is no possibility of the Government introducing such legislation?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman also tell the House exactly what a person can do to guard against the subsidence of his house?

Mr. BROWN: I certainly could not at Question Time.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question?

Mr. BROWN: I have already done so.

Oral Answers to Questions — RE-AFFORESTATION.

Mrs. WARD (for Mrs. COPELAND): 21.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether they will consider in their re-afforestation schemes the advisability of planting hardwood trees, such as oak, beech, etc., instead of only planting larch and fir trees, especially as to-day the demand for larch as pit-props is a diminishing one?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: The Forestry Commissioners are not neglecting opportunities of acquiring hardwood soils, of which they planted over 1,600 acres last season, and concurrently are undertaking research with a view to improved methods of raising hardwood crops. It has to be borne in mind that the greater demand is for softwoods, which comprise 91 per cent. of the timber consumption in this country, and that the bulk of the war-time fellings were of conifers.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to proposed conscription in Austria?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would indicate that they might pay their debts before they buy armaments?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSJORDAN (JEWS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will obtain a report on the possibility of allowing Jews to settle in Transjordan, or send out an independent committee to report?

Major GEORGE DAVIES (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. No, Sir. The possibility of the settlement of Jews in Transjordan must depend upon local conditions, as to which my right hon. Friend must be guided by the advice of the High Commissioner, who is unable to recommend the encouragement of Jewish settlement in existing circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet any information as to the women who hunger-struck at Bethlehem; are they free; was the matter concealed; and was the officer in charge of the gaol English?

Major DAVIES: My right hon. Friend has not yet received the report from the High Commissioner for which he asked, following the right hon. Gentleman's previous question, but he has since received independently from him the following information. The two women referred to claimed to be Soviet citizens, which he is informed is untrue; they declared a hunger strike on the 4th of March and abandoned it on the 5th of March. In accordance with the regular practice, release on bail was offered, but sureties were not forthcoming.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are these women still in prison, does the hon. Member think?

Major DAVIES: I will consult my right hon. Friend.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it be possible for him to wire instead of writing?

Major DAVIES: I will convey that question to my right hon. Friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at half-past Seven of the clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) and, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 6, any such Private Business may be taken after half-past Nine of the clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

VAGRANCY.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section four of the Vagrancy Act, 1824, so far as it relates to persons wandering abroad and lodging in barns or other places.
The purpose of the Bill is simple. It is to ensure that in future no person shall be sent to gaol for sleeping out just
because he has not the money to buy himself a night's lodging. The law as it stands is flagrantly unjust. There never was a more blatant example of one law for the rich and another for the poor. If you have a little money in your pocket, or if you are rich and like to go about the lanes of your country sleeping under hedges or in barns, the police are powerless to stop you. If you have money you cannot be interfered with. Sleeping out is then a hobby, a health-giving pursuit in which the well-to-do may indulge under the benevolent eye of the law, but, if you are poor, so poor that you have not the price of a night's lodging in your pocket, you are a criminal if you sleep out, and a rogue and vagabond within the meaning of the Vagrancy Act, 1824, and you are liable to be sent to gaol.
It seems to have struck no one that, if it be a crime to sleep out, the criminal is surely he who sleeps out when he has the money in his pocket to buy himself a shelter, and not the poor fellow who cannot afford to do otherwise. The law as it stands is a barbaric survival of the time when there was much disorder in the land, and we had no properly constituted police. I hope that no hon. Member would be prepared to defend it to-day. The House would probably be surprised to learn—I myself was astonished—the number of the convictions that have taken place under this antiquated and—as I thought until I investigated the position—obsolescent law. In the period 1925–1929 the convictions averaged 2,163 a year. I am glad to say that they show a tendency to decrease, but in 1931, the last year for which I have the complete figure, 1,612 persons were charged with the offence of sleeping out.
Public opinion was focussed on the extreme cruelty with which the present law may operate by the case of Thomas Parker, who died in Winson Green gaol in June, 1933. Parker was an ex-guardsman, who enlisted when under age during the War, and served in France. After the War, like so many other ex-service men, he suffered long periods of unemployment. In the summer of 1933, when on his way to Tamworth in search of work, he was arrested for sleeping out. The policeman who woke him asked him
why he was sleeping out, and, on being told that it was because he had no money, the policeman arrested Parker according to law. The magistrates at Coleshill sentenced this man, who had never been to gaol before, to 14 days' imprisonment with hard labour. On the subsequent tragedy I need not dwell. According to the prison doctor, Parker was probably suffering from claustrophobia, the fear of enclosed spaces, a nervous disorder not uncommon among ex-service men which makes confinement in narrow quarters a torture which may lead to insanity. All the evidence points to the conclusion that Parker was reduced to a state of frenzy by what he felt to be the injustice of his sentence. He was sentenced by the prison governor to three days' solitary confinement for creating a disturbance in the prison, and on the way to the punishment cell he met with injuries from which he died within a quarter of an hour. When the facts of Parker's sentence and death became known, public opinion was stirred, and ex-service men's associations in particular were deeply moved and indignant. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, as a result of the feeling which was aroused, set up an inquiry among chief constables, which convinced him that the law required amendment.
The Bill which I am asking leave to introduce has been prepared in close consultation with the Home Office. Some may think that it does not go far enough, but I would beg those who hold that opinion to accept the Bill as it stands, as any amendment might wreck it, and the time necessary for passing it might not be forthcoming. I can assure others who may have doubts in other directions, that the Home Office have seen to it that under the provisions of the Bill the professional or dangerous vagrant will not escape the purview of the police. As I said at the beginning, the Bill is a modest measure and one of elementary justice, and I hope that this House, which has shown itself at least as jealous as any of its predecessors of the liberty of the individual, will unanimously give me leave to introduce it. As far as I myself, as an ex-service man, am concerned, I feel that, if I obtain this reform, I shall be making what reparation I can to the memory of Thomas Parker.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Churchill, Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes, Major-General Sir Alfred Knox, Mr. Lansbury, Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland, Lord Eustace Percy, Mr. Geoffrey Peto, Major Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. Herbert Williams, Earl Winterton, and Brigadier-General Spears.

VAGRANCY BILL,

"to amend Section four of the Vagrancy Act, 1824, so far as it relates to persons wandering abroad and lodging in barns and other places," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

Regimental Charitable Funds Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

3.35 p.m.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I rise to raise, on the Third Reading of this Bill, the question of the loss of lives and ships at sea. I do not want to do that in any unnecessarily controversial spirit. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has felt a certain indignation with regard to the strictures which I have made, and which some of my hon. Friends have made, in this House, and he has even threatened to reply to the statements which have been made; but no reply has ever been forthcoming. The right hon. Gentleman, so I am informed, at the annual dinner of the Chamber of Shipping, after enjoying the hospitality of that non-political body, spent most of his time in attacking an absent Member of this House, in the person of myself, for making what he called wild and extravagant statements. If those wild and extravagant statements require contradiction, they ought to be contradicted. So far, they have not been contradicted, and I should hope that in the Debate to-day, if what I have to say is not true, we shall have a specific repudiation of the actual statements that I am about to make.
We have had in the House during the last three months some discussions on the position of one section of the shipping industry. I am bound to say, and I admit this to the right hon. Gentleman, that I think that, as a result of the discussions we have had in the House, the situation so far as the seamen are concerned has improved. I believe that the work of the Trade Union Parliamentary Committee representing the two unions primarily concerned has had a useful influence on public opinion, and it is reported to me, and I am very glad to record it in this House, that alien seamen are now being displaced in favour of British seamen. If all those wild and extravagant state-
ments that I made have resulted in that, I do not regret them in the least. I would, however, ask the right hon. Gentleman to address himself to this point: It is very good, so far as it goes, that British seamen should be employed in preference to alien, and especially Asiatic, seamen; but this question is now arising, to which the Government really must give attention: What about the repatriation of the superseded alien seamen who are now a charge on public funds? Something ought to be done to see that these people, who are no longer welcome on British ships, are repatriated.
The move in public opinion during the last few months is to be welcomed. I think it is true to say that, as a result of the controversy which has been raging, public opinion is more alive now, perhaps, than ever it has been, to the conditions of life afloat, and I am sure that everybody, irrespective of class and irrespective of political views, would like to see that those who go down to the sea in ships get a square deal. It is unfortunate that in recent months we have heard of the loss of a number of ships. It is within the memory of this House that the "Saxilby," "Millpool," and "Usworth" were lost, and more recently the "Blairgowrie" and "La Crescenta." This is a problem of what one might call industrial accidents. In practically every industry in the country, and certainly in every productive industry, there is a volume of law which deals with industrial accidents, but unfortunately we are not quite in that position, unless the right hon. Gentleman will use such legislation as he has to the full.
During the three years 1931, 1932 and 1933—the figures are not available to the public for 1934, and perhaps even the right hon. Gentleman may not have them yet—the number of British vessels, excluding ships belonging to the Royal Navy, lost, were, in 1931, 125, in 1932, 119, and in 1933, 120. In 1931 the gross tonnage of ships lost was nearly 42,000, and in 1933 69,000. That represents British capital. But, in addition to that, there were lives lost at sea which represent something even more valuable than British capital. I do not want to weary the House with details as to the figures of lives lost, but it is perfectly clear that the Mercantile Marine is one of the dangerous trades of this country, and
the question is as to whether anything can really be done about it.
I take, first, the case of "La Crescenta," which was an oil tanker lost with all hands. I have here copies of a number of letters, and indeed I have photographs of letters. All these letters were sent by members of the crew during the last voyage. I am making no charge against the owners, none whatever. I, as a landsman, know what the right hon. Gentleman and other shipowners think about me in this House. I am an ignorant landsman, and I know that they call me the Lord High Admiral for Wakefield. I know that that is a measure of their contempt for me, but I am concerned with the human interests involved in the loss of life and in the loss of ships. Here is a letter sent from the boat when it was at Los Angeles on 6th July last year by a seaman on the boat to his sister:
Arrived here to-day. Expect we shall be here some time as we lad a pretty bad breakdown at sea during the week. Broke the pump which operates the cargo pump; hence we have been unable to clean the tanks, so shall have to clean them here as soon as the engine repairs are done.
That does not seem to be very serious, but the same seaman writing from San Pedro in California on 16th September, still on the same boat, said:
The second Sunday out, the stokehole caught fire. It started underneath the boilers and was not noticed until it had secured a good hold. It fairly put the wind up us for a while as we had explosive oil aboard. Anyway, after an hour's fight we got a hold on it and then soon had it out
That may perhaps not appear to be very dramatic. But here is an extract from a letter dated 21st November, 1934, from the third engineer of this fated ship to his father. I am not presenting this as a seaman with any special knowledge; it is a letter from a third engineer who ought to know his business:
This is a proper old ramshackle tub that I am on now, but there is one thing, I am getting fairly good experience for my ticket from her as far as running repairs and breakdowns are concerned. It is not the main engines that are the trouble—they are the best I have been with, thank goodness—but it is the auxiliaries such as the condensers, Weir's pump, fuel pumps, boiler mountings, joints and hundred and one other things.
Then, of course, there are the tanks; they come under us. They have to be steamed out after every cargo and the heating coils tested, and rivets. I think I have cut more out than was ever put in, at least it seems like that, especially lately as we have been having some rather rough weather. Have you ever cut a rivet out of a ship's side, just below the bilge keel when she was at sea and put a wooden plug in till you reached port, then listed her right over as far as possible and done a bit of fishing with a piece of string and a cork through the hole, when you have found the cork floating on top of the sea, tie a bolt on that has a small eye-bolt tapped in the end of it, then pull it through the hole and tighten up from the inside? Well, that is a job we have just done in this port. How is that for a novel bit of experience?
—So novel that I imagine that the owners never had to undergo it—
We had a survey of two boilers in Japan last time and are having the other one done here. It means a couple of days extra in port, but it also means a couple of days extra work for us, as we have all mountings and things like that to do ourselves. We even have to clean our own tubes and back ends and chip inside, as we have only two firemen and two greasers now, as two of them were put ashore in America last time with bad stomachs. Still,"—
and this is the Mercantile Marine all over—
I suppose we have to do it—its what we signed on for.
That perhaps may not appear to be very dramatic, but it seems to be cumulative evidence as to the state of this boat. Now I come to a letter which the captain of the boat, Captain Upstill, sent to his brother from Skimotsu in Japan, on 22nd August. I will read the relevant portions of the letter. After explaining that he did not like this running about the world and not being on a regular trip, he said:
The only hope I have of getting home is that they might send Captain Sinclair out to relieve me, as his ship is still laid up, and I was supposed to go there before and he come here. I cannot say I will be sorry if they do, for this ship is getting pretty old now and is always getting into trouble, breaking down and one thing and another. There is a row on at present about the cost of some engine repairs last time in Los Angeles. Ah! well, I suppose we will get over it somehow, but I expect they (the owners) will moan about it for months.
That carries us a little further in the story. Here is a letter from the captain of the ship to another brother sent the same day:
There is another hell of a, row on now about the cost of engine repairs in Los Angeles last time. The Weir boiler pumps and the winch condenser gave out on the passage up from Chili, and, owing to the strike at Los Angeles, I had a terrible job getting them done in time before the cancelling date of the charter. I just managed to get the charter by the matter of an hour or so, but the bill came to nearly £1,000 altogether. Now the owners are playing war about it. I certainly seem to find plenty of trouble. I've never been out of it since I've been master, but I suppose we will get over it somehow.
I will not read the letter to his wife, but I will read another letter, of which I have an actual photographed copy, to the brother of the skipper who went down on that boat:
It is with sincere regret and sorrow that I am writing this letter. The disappearance of 'La Crescenta' almost broke my heart, as I considered your cousin Norman a very good personal friend. Yon probably do not know it, but I made a trip to Japan and returned on her September 17th-November 21st, 1934, but the condition of the ship so discouraged me that I begged off in Port San Louis, California, although I also tried to get off in Yokohama.
Harris and Dixon are so willing to take a drastic chance for a few pounds gain that they never considered the people aboard. As your cousin was very confidential with me he told me many things; one thing in particular. They called them down for spending too much money on her. She needed work done badly. As it was they had several extensions on a general inspection which would take approximately three months. Her conditions were pitiful, and as I made the trip as fireman, nuts and bolts fell out continuously and very large pieces of asbestos fell from the steam pipes. The boilers were in awful shape as also were the fuel pump, flues and fireboxes. More than once we lost steam and had to stop on their account. It wouldn't surprise us to see her capsize in a storm. Really there were so many things wrong that I could write a volume about it.
However, I did go to the British Consul here to make a statement regarding her condition, placing all the fault on Harris and Dixon, as it just as well might have been me. I still hope down in my heart that they will be found.
That is a little further corroborative evidence in regard to that particular vessel. I will come to the moral of the story presently. As regards the "Blairgowrie," I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to take steps to hold an official inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman claims that this boat was fully
manned and, indeed, over-manned. However that may be, I will not deal with that point at the moment. I should like to read what I believe is an affidavit from a man who sailed on that boat as carpenter on the voyage before the one on which she was lost. He says:
I joined the steamship 'Blairgowrie' at West Thurrock Chalk Wharf on 1st November, 1934 for a voyage via Rotterdam to Philadelphia, United States of America, my rating being carpenter and sailor. On taking up my duties I started taking soundings. I went to the fore peak and found that there were 16 feet of water in the fore peak. I thought there was something wrong, so I dropped my sounding rod and went right down to the engine room and said to the second engineer: 'Have you got the fresh water for the boiler in the fore peak?' He replied, 'No, no, Chippy. What is the matter?' I said: 'Sixteen feet of water in her.' He said: 'That is nothing. You will get that every now and again.' He started to tell me how the ship was leaking and one thing and another and how that had been so for a considerable time. He said that in No. 2 bilge on the starboard side you will always find anything from 18 inches to two feet. I went on with the soundings and when I came to the after peak I found eight feet of water.
My other work was general until we came to batten her down when I found hatches on Nos. 1 and 2 were in a bad way. They fitted tight in some cases, but in others they would be about three inches short. I had to put 1½-inch pieces in the back of each end to keep them from shifting, until such time as we got new hatches made. There was plenty of wood to make hatches, and we made them eventually. Then we come to tarpaulins. There was only one good tarpaulin for each hatch.
I believe that is against the regulations.
For the others I might just as well have used my blankets for all the good they were. What we did was to put an old one on and then a new one and then an old one. Eventually, when we went to sea the sea started to rip them up, so I said to the mate: 'Those old things are rotten.' He said: 'You will just have to do with them.' I went and got battens and put them on to hold the torn pieces of tarpaulin to the wooden hatches so that it would not tear them off and so waste my second tarpaulin. There were no spares on board.
About four days out we were getting pretty bad weather. As I was taking my soundings one morning and the captain was on the bridge he called me up and said: 'Chips, you might see what you can do with that port watertight door.' This is the door which leads from the forward well deck into the bunker space under the bridge deck. I said: 'All right, Sir' and went forward to get my hammer and my spanner. With them I came aft. I had encountered
a heavy sea coming along from the forward deck. The captain was on the bridge deck and I was standing on the lee side wondering what I would do, when he came down and said: 'Chips, you will not get that door tightened, standing there,' so I said: 'Whenever you heave her to I will get down there.' He says: 'I won't do that.' I said: 'Here is the hammer. You cannot get this man to do that, as the last one did and lost his life through it. I will go down inside and caulk her instead, but I am not going down there.' I eventually went inside the bunker bridge bunker space and caulked her. When I went in there was about one foot of water washing up over the lip of the combing inside and going into the lower bunker. One of the reasons why the captain had to ask me to tighten the door was owing to the constant complaints made by the firemen that the water was continually falling upon them whilst at work in the lower bunkers.
It is a very long letter and I could go on, but I do not want to weary the House. I could go on making quotations about the steering gear, and so on. That is about the "Blairgowrie."
Recently, the officers of the Merchant Navy Federation, which has taken a very active part in this controversy and agitation, has published an interim report covering the last eight months. Their language is guarded. This Federation is a body which I am sure has the respect of Members of this House. It has a Parliamentary Committee consisting of certain hon. Members of this House, some of whom are present now. This is their report:
While, of course, phenomenally bad weather may furnish a complete explanation of these casualties"—
They are referring to a number of ships that have been lost—
federated officers are asking whether the manning scales, which at present satisfy the Board of Trade, adequately provide, in every case, for safety of ships when two or more men are incapacitated through injuries sustained in repairing broken hatches, steering gear, etc. They are asking whether the prolonged periods of laying up may make vessels especially vulnerable. They are asking whether the revised load lines are entirely satisfactory in the light of practical experience.
Those are not heated words. They are not wild and extravagant statements. They are statements made by people who have knowledge of these questions. The Imperial Merchant Service Guild, a little less than a fortnight ago, at the forty-second annual meeting held in Liverpool, passed the following resolution unanimously:
That we, masters and officers, members of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, assembled at the forty-second annual meeting of the Guild, desire to place on record the grave concern with which we view the number of, apparently well-found ships which have recently foundered at sea in bad weather, with heavy loss of life, such as the s.s. "Saxilby," "Millpool," "Usworth," "Blairgowrie" and "La Crescenta." We are concerned also at the number of cargo ships which have been in distress in heavy weather through damage to steering-gear and hatches, and we are of the opinion that the whole position, including that of the new load line as a possible contributory cause of these disasters, warrants searching inquiry on the part of the Government, and we direct our executive to send a copy of this resolution to the President of the Board of Trade.
Well, he has had it, and I think it is as well to give it also to the House. I do not understand the reluctance of the President of the Board of Trade to hold inquiries where there have been shipping disasters. The right hon. Gentleman says he has never been reluctant. In the case of the "Millpool" and the "Saxilby" he refused inquiries because there were no survivors, and no proof could be found. But he is going to have them now on ships where there are no survivors. My case against him is that in the ease of these two ships there were no inquiries. Now he is having them. I say that inquiries in the case of the loss of a ship ought to be automatic.
I do not understand this hydra-headed beast called the Board of Trade. There is the more humane railway department which always has an inquiry if there is a railway accident. There is another branch, the Marine Department, which has to be fully persuaded into an inquiry. In the case of road accidents innumerable questions are put down to the Home Secretary, and there is an immediate police inquiry. I believe I am right in saying that the owner of a vehicle involved in a road accident is under a legal obligation to report the circumstances. That, apparently, does not apply to the sea. In the case of another branch of the Board of Trade, that subsidiary part of it known as the Mines Department, whenever there is a mine disaster in this country, there is a private notice question, and it is stated right away that there is to be an inquiry. There are, of course, inquiries whenever there are mining disasters. Yet, as regards ships at sea, it is a matter for strong pressure before a full inquiry is instituted. When a ship is
moored to the dockside, however, it is a factory, and then it comes under the administration of a much more efficient department, the Home Office, and if there are infringements of the law, in that case there are proceedings in the Court. But not so when a ship is not in dock, and it happens to be under the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade. It is obvious that under the best conditions with the finest ships, in certain circumstances there may be disasters and calamities. Let us admit that you cannot make life at sea as safe a job as, shall we say, being a Member of Parliament, though that is not too safe a job. But is the President of the Board of Trade, and are Members of this House, and are the best type of shipowners in this country quite satisfied that no lives are lost at sea which could have been saved? That is really the question which has caused us to raise this subject in the House to-day.
I would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade and the House whether they regard the staff of surveyors as sufficient? On them rests a tremendous responsibility. If ships leave port un-seaworthy, the right hon. Gentleman is morally responsible. It requires an adequate staff of not overworked officers to see that that kind of work is adequately done. I think it is a little unfortunate that while there were in 1931—I am leaving aside senior surveyors and engineering surveyors—47 ship surveyors, the year after there were only 45, and now there are only 43. I think that this House is entitled to ask whether that staff is adequate to carry out the responsibility which rests on the right hon. Gentleman. Arising out of that, I would like to ask him whether he is satisfied that every step is taken to see that no ship which is not reasonably seaworthy leaves the shore? There is too much evidence now, not merely among seamen but among officers and all ratings, to show that many ships—some of them have been laid up far too long to be healthy when they go out again—are not fully seaworthy, may be leaving these shores.
Then I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his Department does everything it can under its instructions and regulations, and with the staff at its disposal, to ensure that the accommodation of the seamen and the officers is reasonable in all the circumstances. I would
like to ask him, also whether he really does regard the present regulations as to manning as being adequate in the interest of the ships and in the interest of the people aboard the ships? I would further ask him whether the Department is sufficiently alive to the interests of the people who spend the greater part of their lives afloat? It is a terrible thing to say, but on the whole I think the Board of Trade's interest in shipping has been more in ships than in seamen. Its interests have been primarily commercial. I think I may put down a question to the Prime Minister asking him whether he would not transfer all the labour sections of the Merchant Shipping Acts to the Home Office for their administration, because I believe if they were administered by the Home Office they would be far more effectively administered than they are by the Board of Trade to-day. The Board of Trade seem to have divided loyalties on this question.
My submission is that the number of surveyors is inadequate. I believe that seamen and officers are losing their lives through the inadequacy of the surveys that take place. The Merchant Shipping Act gives surveyors power to detain ships if they are unseaworthy, or for other causes, but—and I have no doubt that this is a sound provision—the Board of Trade is liable to damages in the case of unnecessary detention. I understand that the surveyors' instructions are so vague as to make it impossible for them to determine what are good grounds for detaining a ship. If there are good grounds which could be specified, I think they ought to be specified here to-day and made public. A certain number of what are called efficient deckhands have to be carried, but there is no definition of efficient deck hands, and, as a consequence, a surveyor can never detain a ship because it is undermanned. I do not pretend to be able to judge between the value of various classes of seamen, but the sort of theory there is that two odd people make one able-bodied seaman seems to me to be fantastic. As a friend of mine wrote the other day, on that theory two bus conductors would make a driver, and two medical students would make a surgeon. That is, obviously, fantastic, and my submission is that the supervision to-day is inadequate to protect either the property or the person,
either the ships or the crews—not of all ships, but of a number of ships.
The accommodation on many boats is a scandal. Without condemning the whole of the industry, or any section of it, I am quite satisfied that if this House became as familiar with the worst conditions on board ship as they have become with the worst housing conditions on land, they would feel just as strongly as they do now about slum clearance, and I am not withdrawing the term "slums of the sea." I hope it will become historic until they have been abolished. I could keep the House much longer than I wish to keep it in describing the conditions which obtain on many ships. I will give one or two quite haphazard quotations. Here is the case of a certain boat—I can give the name of it; I have never quoted in this House without being able to give the name of the boat—
Some of the crew supply their own buckets in which to wash; others use discarded paint drums. On each side of the deck aft a small compartment is divided into two sections—one for a w.c. and the other for a shower bath only. A table is provided in the firemen's and A.B.'s foc'sle for messing purposes, no mess-rooms being provided. The sailors' foc'sle is leaking badly. The facts have been reported to the sanitary authorities on the Tyne, but no action has been taken. The ordinary seamen's room has no heating apparatus of any description; a leaking ventilator keeps the room always wet and cold. An O.S. has fixed a piece of wood to the bulwark for use as a table, having nothing provided for messing purposes. The lamp has a glass that has now been broken for months, despite the request for a new one; consequently the cabin is full of smoke. The crew also state that owing to the lack of lamp glass they are compelled to change over the glasses of the navigation lights to the anchor lights when in port, or vice versa when going to sea.
I could quote case after case of ships where the conditions to-day really will not bear any kind of examination. Here is another one from Newcastle-upon-Tyne:
The foc'sle is aft, and reached from the poop deck by staircase. At the foot of the stairs the crew's messroom is entered, and inside the messroom the washing place is entered by another door, from whence access is gained to the crew's w.c., which consists of a long trough with a piece of wood along the front edge for the men using same to perch on. There is no continuous flow of water when in port, and as there is only one port and a small vent in the w.c., unless water is drawn from over the ship's side the accumulation of
filth is deplorable, and in warm weather the stench is detrimental to the crew's health, as the smells traverse the messroom into the foc'sle.
I could go on giving cases of living conditions which are more or less acquiesced in by the Board of Trade. As regards safety, we should all of us attach far more importance to the safety of life than to the conditions of living accommodation, but are we satisfied that there are no ships leaving British ports in a condition which renders them liable to be lost in heavy weather. I had put into my hands this morning some bolts which were taken from a lifeboat not of an ordinary cargo steamer or a tramp steamer, but from a lifeboat of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Line. These bolts were holding the fittings together in the knees of the lifeboat. Repairs had to be done; these bolts were taken out only last Friday. They have never been inspected. I am told by people who understand these questions, they cannot have been looked at for 20 years. What use are these bolts to hold a lifeboat which is probably overcrowded? How many ships are there going to sea with rotten rivets? I do not know. I am making no charges, but if that happens to this boat, I can give the name if it is necessary, it is likely to happen on scores and scores of smaller ships where there is not the same care taken about their condition. I say that I am making no general charge, but, if there are half a dozen tramp steamers as rotten as that, something really ought to be done about it.
This is the kind of thing which I am certain is bound to touch the consciences of hon. Members and indeed the conscience of industrialists throughout the country. There are ships—I could give the names—of great firms of shipowners whose conditions for the seamen are regarded by them as admirable. I am making no charge against the industry as such. The President of the Board of Trade has interpreted what I have said in the past as a charge against the industry. It never was, and it never has been. I am charging those blacklegs of the industry who do not live up to the standards set by the best shipowners. In our big industries the leaders on the employers' side know perfectly well that the future of their industry does not depend upon bringing labour into it as an
element of competition. They realise that the problem of hours of labour, wages conditions and safety appliances, ought to be imposed on everybody alike, that everybody ought to live up to a proper standard, and then those employers who by their ability and foresight can get a trade advantage at the expense of their competitors have done so as the result of their own organisation and brains and not by sweating the people they employ. That principle is established in practically every large industry in this country. Coalowners would not go back on the collective bargaining system, the iron and steel trade certainly would not, and the textile trades would not. The good employers are only too concerned to bring the bad ones up to the scratch, so that all employers could start on the same mark. This question must be alarming to the good shipowner, the man who cares for the sea, who has done his best to make his boats as good as they can be, but it also affects people who are concerned with industry in general.
Despite all the claims and boasts of the shipping industry I do not think that it is as efficient as it pretends to be. It cannot be. It has not got nearly as far along the road to collective responsibility as other industries. We hope it will, and we ask the President, not to alter the law, because that would be out of order at the moment, but to use what power he has under the law to issue instructions and regulations to ensure that the shipping industry of this country is put on a proper basis, so that there shall be no unnecessary loss of life. Nobody but a fool would pretend that in any industry of this country people are not going to lose their lives. Railway servants do so every year, and miners, and seamen as well, but it is a crime against the nation if any seamen lose their lives when the right hon. Gentleman might have exercised a little more supervision over the ships in which they sail.
In raising this question to-day, we are hoping that public feeling in the country, which is growing on this issue, will be satisfied and that the nation will know that the Board of Trade is prepared to use every single power it has, if need be, to increase the staff, to see that the job
is properly done, and make quite sure that people do not risk their lives in boats which are really floating cemeteries. It is not right that this should happen in this century. We got rid of the worst types of boats 70 years ago, but we have some ships to-day which, according to modern standards, are just as bad as the coffin ships of years ago. They must go in the interests of the credit of the British shipping industry and in the interests of our own honour as a shipping nation. It is a mistake to think that all the best ships afloat are British. Unfortunately, that is not so. I wish they were. If they were, England could still hold her head up as a great seafaring nation.

4.25 p.m.

Brigadier-General NATION: I want to take this opportunity to draw the attention of the House once more to the serious plight of the seamen in our mercantile marine. The position is so serious that there is something like 40,000 men out of work, and I am afraid that far from improving as time goes on the situation is likely to become worse. A few months ago we had a debate on this subject. The matter was seriously discussed, and we had a reply on behalf of the Government. Since then I have been making some inquiries in the port which I represent. I have visited a large number of ships and many local port authorities, and I have been convinced that the two main causes why there are so many of our seamen out of work are, first, the employment of a large number of foreigners, and, secondly, the employment of a large number of lascars and other coloured seamen. With regard to the foreigners, I understand that there is nothing to prevent the owner of a ship, or a company, employing as many foreigners as they like. They are signed on at foreign ports, come with their cargoes to this country, and then return to foreign ports. They are not discharged here, and therefore our seamen have no opportunity of going on board these ships.
These foreigners are employed because they are willing to accept worse conditions than our own men. I do not believe that they get the full salaries which are paid to our seamen. They are willing to work longer hours than our own people, but I do not believe that they work any better than our own seamen. They are
also employed because, coming from Asiatic ports, they can be got for longer journeys at much reduced rates of pay. In the port which I represent a census has been kept from 1930 onwards, and during the five years up to 1935 there have been 500 Asiatics coming into the port who have claimed to be of British nationality. On verification only 40 were found to be British subjects, the rest being foreigners. I do not think that any other industry in this country would tolerate the employment of foreigners in this way. I cannot imagine a building society or a large contractor employing a number of Italian workmen or French carpenters, or any other kind of foreigner, for a moment. Why then, in the chief industry of this country of which we have been so proud for centuries, should we tolerate foreigners on ships flying the British flag.
There are many reasons given why lascars should be employed. They are said to be British subjects. That is true. The same is true of a certain number of Arabs and Chinamen. They are also British subjects. It is said, therefore, that they have just as much right to be employed as our own seamen. I would have no objection whatever to their being employed provided they were employed under the same conditions as our own white seamen. In reply to a question which I asked a week or two ago, the President of the Board of Trade told me that the rate of pay of lascars was 27s. a month. We know that the National Maritime Board scale of wages for white seamen is not less than £8 6s. a month. That is to say, the lascar receives only one-sixth of what the white sailor gets. Then I am told, "But we have to employ many more lascars than white seamen for any given work." I am informed on very good authority that the proportion is three to two, that three lascars will do the work of two white seamen.
Taking the question as a whole, the ship manned entirely by lascars would pay one-fourth of the wages that the same ship would pay if manned entirely by white sailors. That is a, situation which should not be tolerated. Then I am told that the lascars are employed because they can do the work better in tropical climates. That is a matter of opinion. Those who have travelled in the Tropics
have seen many ships manned entirely by white sailors, and I think that the officers of the Royal Navy who are Members of this House will bear me out when I say that there are ships of the Royal Navy stationed in places like the Red Sea for years on end, and that there are no lascars on board. If the Royal Navy is satisfied that white sailors can do the work there is very little excuse for the merchant service employing coloured seamen.
I would not have any objection, even if the rates of pay were less, provided the lascars were employed only on ships that traded in the Tropics and did not come to European waters. They would not then come into competition with our own people. But when we see ships that are registered in this country, starting from ports in this country and proceeding to India, Hong Kong, Australia, and so on, passing through the Red Sea and Mediterranean, half their voyage being in European waters, I think we have a just cause of complaint that these lascars come here and receive only one-sixth of the pay of our own people. I am convinced that if their pay was similar to that of our own people and was regulated by the National Maritime Board, there would be no question whatever as to the number of white seamen that would be employed in replacement of the lascars. The situation is very serious from the point of view of the unemployed in this country. All of us who came to this House, I am sure, at one time or other gave pledges that we would do all that we could to reduce the number of unemployed in this country. I know that the Government have done their utmost in almost every industry to reduce unemployment, but in this one particular industry instead of unemployment becoming less I am afraid it tends to increase.
I asked the President of the Board of Trade a short time ago whether any steps were being taken to remedy this defect, and he told me that he was making inquiries into the matter. I hope that he will give this very serious question his utmost consideration, and not only that he will conduct inquiries, but that before long he will take urgent measures to reduce this evil. It is a very serious one, and we all as Englishmen feel it very strongly indeed, especi-
ally those of us who represent ports in this country.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I did not agree with all the arguments and allegations of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). Nevertheless I think the House is grateful to him for raising the subjects that he mentioned. I think it is true that there is a good deal of anxiety in the public mind as to whether everything possible and practicable is being done to guard against loss of life at sea. A question I wish to ask is whether the Board of Trade is satisfied that all reasonable precautions are being taken in the case of the smaller vessels, particularly the fishing vessels? In 1908 there was a Departmental Sub-committee of the Board of Trade which reported very strongly in favour of the use of line-throwing apparatus on all fishing vessels. There was a delay of 20 to 21 years, but about 1929 the Board of Trade actually made the use of apparatus of this kind compulsory on all vessels of over 500 tons gross burthen. That regulation is all right as far as it goes, but I suggest that there has been a very considerable loss of life on vessels of a smaller size, and that the time has come when the Board of Trade might very well consider applying similar regulations to these smaller vessels.
I have figures here for the years 1930 to 1933, showing the number of wrecks among vessels of less than 500 tons, and the number of lives lost in those wrecks. In 1930 there were 55 wrecks and 41 lives lost; in 1931 there were 63 wrecks and 38 lives lost; in 1932 there were 60 wrecks and 37 lives lost; and in 1933, the latest year for which I have the figures, there were 58 wrecks and 69 lives lost. Those figures are sufficient to show that this is a very serious matter. I know that there are a number of people who are entitled to speak with authority on this question and are of opinion that a high proportion of those lives could have been saved if all the vessels concerned had been equipped with line-throwing apparatus in the same way as the larger vessels. Of course it is not possible to say exactly how many of the lives represented in the figures I have quoted would have been saved, but it is possible to give many examples of wrecks of steam trawlers
where lives have in fact been saved because the vessels had this apparatus on board and were able to use it. To illustrate my point, I will give the House two recent examples dating from the autumn of last year. I have here extracts from the reports of skippers of the vessels concerned. This is a report of the skipper of the steam trawler "Orsino":
the skipper of the steam trawler 'Orsino' reports that on 9th October he was asked to assist the steam trawler 'Kingston Diamond' who could not move his engines and was on a lee shore off the entrance to Westfjord in Norway. There was a confused sea, with a strong wind. The 'Orsino' steamed past the 'Kingston Diamond' and made connection with the first rocket fired, although it was dark. He took the 'Kingston Diamond' in tow to Tromsoe.
There is another case:
On 25th October, shortly after 6 p.m., weather hazy and rainy, the 'Holborn' stranded on Medellandsandr, on the south coast of Iceland. Flares were burnt, and shortly before midnight shore people arrived on ponies from across the desert. The 'Holborn' crew made connection with the Schermuly apparatus across the surf, and the crew landed by means of journeys to and fro on an improvised raft.
Those are just two examples I have taken. It would be possible to obtain a great many other cases in which lives have been saved through the use of apparatus of this kind, when without it those lives would have been lost. No one wants to place an undue burden on the fishing industry, particularly on the trawling industry, at this time; but my information is that the insurance companies have realised the importance of this matter and have made arrangements to buy this apparatus in bulk and to supply it at cost price to owners of trawlers and other fishing vessels. This sort of apparatus, I understand, is extremely efficient. It is possible to get a pistol which will fire a rocket something like 140 yards and the cost of the apparatus is not more than £9. So I ask whether the President of the Board of Trade will reconsider this matter and consider whether the time has not come to amend the Board of Trade regulations with regard to line-throwing apparatus, so that it will be compulsory to carry apparatus of this kind on vessels of less than 500 tons gross burthen.
There is one other matter I wish to raise. The right hon. Member for Wakefield referred to the manning of boats, and he seemed to imply that a good
deal of unnecessary danger was incurred because ships put to sea undermanned. I do not know whether that is true or not, but, even if the manning of ships is unsatisfactory in the case of British ships, most of us would agree that it is still more unsatisfactory in the case of a number of foreign ships, and in the case of foreign ships which sometimes compete with our own. Many times the President of the Board of Trade has had his attention drawn to the competition which our coasting vessels have to meet from foreign vessels which, at any rate judged by our standard, that is by the standards of the Board of Trade, are undermanned.
I have in my hand a letter from a firm of shipowners in the North of Scotland, not in my constituency. This firm wrote to one of my hon. Friends a few days ago and enclosed a circular from a firm of ship brokers to give their correspondent an idea of the competition with which they had to contend from Dutch vessels working on the Scottish coast. They say:
We know from actual experience that British coasting owners are being squeezed out by these Dutch vessels. If the Government cannot reserve the coasting trade for our own vessels, then shipowners should at least be entitled to claim that the Dutch vessels should be manned according to our Board of Trade rules, so that we may be able to compete with them.
I am not suggesting for a moment that it is possible or desirable to reserve our coastal shipping simply to our own ships, partly because I am naturally not very favourable to proposals of that kind, but principally because we would expose in that matter a very broad flank to retaliation. But is there no possibility in the near future of obtaining an international agreement on this question of the manning of ships? After all, we have international agreements with regard to other matters. I think I am right in saying that it was only recently that an international agreement was reached on the matter of load line. Something similar might be done in this matter as well. It was raised last December during the Debate on the Shipping Subsidy Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Rea), and he put a question at that time to the President of the Board of Trade asking whether something could not be done to differentiate between ships which observed
our standard of manning and other matters, and the ships of countries which did not, and whether it would not be possible to have some system of differential dock dues. He did not suggest that we should do that by ourselves, but that some agreement might be come to, at any rate among the countries that were prepared to observe a common standard. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether since then he has considered that or any similar suggestion, and whether we are any nearer an international agreement with regard to this matter of the manning of ships?

4.46 p.m.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): With regard to the inquiry made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) on the question of line-throwing apparatus, the matter has been considered by the Board, but we will look into it again, as into any other suggestion that may be made with regard to the throwing of lines. Particulars have been given this afternoon with regard to small vessels and those engaged upon fishing. It is, however, with regard to the cargo vessels that I am going to address the House this afternoon. In the first place, may I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) on the very much improved tone that he has now adopted. He has this afternoon given a repetition of some of the charges that he made some months ago, and he has read a certain amount of impressive correspondence to the House. I am sure he would be the first to admit that it is impossible to clear up the facts with regard to these matters by purely ex parte statements. Inquiries must be very much more drastic. Let me go through some of the main points which the right hon. Gentleman raised. He asked questions again about manning. The history of the manning question is well known to those who are connected with the industry, and I will give a short narrative of the way in which the present scale and inspections have grown up. As a matter of fact, the Board have no legal power to deal with the numbers of crew on board any vessel excepting only on grounds of safety, and it is only on grounds of safety that I understand the right hon. Gentleman raised the question this afternoon. The question of manning on other grounds is for discussion between
representatives of the shipowners and the seamen themselves.
The origin of the present scale is this: Acting on the recommendation of a committee appointed in, I think, 1894, power was taken to detain British and foreign vessels for undermanning. That was incorporated in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1897. After 1897 the Board's officers were instructed to require foreign-going ships of over 200 feet in length and not less than 700 tons gross to carry a sufficient number of deck hands, for division into two effective watches; that is to say, a competent hand at the wheel, a look-out man, and an additional man on deck for any purpose, so that no such foreign-going ship could put to sea without a minimum of six efficient deckhands. The principle of the effective watch is the basis of this arrangement, and it applied to vessels of over 200 feet in length and not less than 700 tons gross. In 1909, however, a considerable advance was made, and on the advice of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee the scale which is now in existence was brought into force, including two additional efficient deck hands in the case of foreign-going steamships of over 2,500 tons gross or more than 320 feet in length and four additional efficient deck hands in such ships if they were over 5,500 tons gross or 5,420 feet in length. This increase was justified on the ground that the new scale represented the ordinary custom and experience in well-found ships. I understood from the concluding portions of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that all that he desired was that the standard throughout the merchant navy should be raised to that of the best-found ships, and that is exactly what is attempted in the manning scale of 1909, which has been the basis of the scale ever since, varying, of course, with the size and length of the vessels. The scale is a minimum, and is usually exceeded, although not in every case.
So far as manning is concerned, there are various ways of ascertaining whether or not there has been any infringement of the law or of the regulations. Perhaps the House might be interested to know what is the machinery to ensure compliance with the board's scale. In the case of British ships it is as follows: All agreements for foreign-going voyages must be completed—that is, wage agree-
ments, the signing-on—before a mercantile marine superintendent, who is instructed to satisfy himself that the Board's scale is complied with before the signing on of the crew. That is the first ordeal through which this agreement or manning scale must pass. In the case of difficulty, the superintendent may communicate with the Board's surveyors, who are able from their own technical experience to decide whether a man may be considered efficient or not. The Board's surveyors have power to detain a ship if the scale is not complied with, and that power has occasionally been used within recent times and is always effective. Non-compliance with the scale may also be brought to light when agreements are scrutinised after discharge of the crew, so that if there has been a cutting down of the crew during the course of the voyage, the ship is caught immediately on her return here at the signing off, so that both at the signing on and at the signing off there are chances of seeing whether or not the manning scale has been complied with. So much for the manning scale.
I do not go into the technical question of what is or is not an efficient deck hand. I prefer to discuss that with those who have technical knowledge rather than with those who have no technical knowledge. What is an efficient deck hand? I ask the right hon. Member for Wakefield. He does not know. I ask his neighbour the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison); What is an efficient deck hand? He does not know either, and I think it would tax the ingenuity of any man without experience—

Dr. ADDISON: It is the right hon. Gentleman himself who is responsible.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. I am responsible, but I am not going to be rushed into doing silly things merely because the right hon. Gentleman says the responsibility rests on my shoulders. I suggest that our manning scales and methods are a model for the whole world and are followed by our inspectors, our surveyors, and our officials. I have nothing more to say on that subject except that if they are not complied with, the usual penalties will in every case be incurred.

Mr. LOGAN: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider two youths equal to two men when he speaks of two deck hands?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not going to answer that question. I do not know their size.

Mr. MACLAY: That same question of what is or is not an efficient deck hand is causing a certain amount of discontent among owners themselves and among those who are employed. I know the difficulties, and I hope this matter will have attention, so that surveyors, those who go to sea, and those who employ may know what is meant in the regulations by an efficient deck hand. It is the whole root of the problem.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I quite agree that it is the root of the problem, because it is no use having men who are inefficient, but it is very different from saying that an apprentice who is well grown and physically fit is not as efficient as an able-bodied seaman of several years' experience who does not possess those physical qualifications. That is not a case where it is possible in this House to lay down a standard. If my hon. Friend asks me, or if I am asked from the other side whether steps will constantly be taken to see that the standard is complied with and that there is no evasion under the heading of efficient deck hands, I can assure them of that for the very simple reason that that is the duty now performed by the surveyors of the Board of Trade and the Mercantile Marine superintendent. If my hon. Friend has any case at any time to bring to the notice of the Board of Trade staff, I am sure it will be looked into immediately without the least hesitation.
What has really brought out once more the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman opposite is this: He thinks there is a certain number of vessels—I do not know whether large or small—which are badly designed, which have bad accommodation for the crew, and which on the whole are not only uncomfortable but unsafe. What steps are taken to prevent that being the general rule in the British Mercantile Marine? First and foremost, there is the method of inspection. I was asked what is the position with regard to the inspection staff. I have here the number of
surveyors employed by the Board of Trade. I do not know from what figures the right hon. Gentleman was quoting, but they were not the same as mine. I am giving the surveyor staff, including the principal consultative officers, district principal officers, and consultative survey staffs. In 1981 there were 209 and in 1935 there were 187, but of course, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, owing naturally to the depression and the diminution of the number of vessels now flying our flag, their duties have been very much curtailed. What has been the result of their activities? These men, who number anything from 187 to 209, last year made their general inspections in no less than 11,738 cases, and in 1930 the total had only reached 7,932, so that it has risen considerably. That shows a very considerable degree of activity, and it shows also that the inspections made by the Board of Trade surveyors must have covered a very great variety of vessels. In some cases their requests have not been complied with, and in any case where they have not been complied with pressure has been brought to bear in the proper quarters.
It is very easy to criticise the surveyors unless one has seen them at work, and I regretted to hear the comparison made between the Home Office and the Board of Trade.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I was not criticising the surveyors, but the Department.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman cannot separate them. They are one department working together, some in Whitehall and the others in the various ports, and they work together with complete harmony and are complementary to each other. It is impossible for them to work in isolation. I say that these surveyors have done their work well, and I did regret hearing a comparison made between the Home Office and the Board of Trade, as though the Board of Trade were doing their work much worse than the Home Office. Indeed, it was suggested that when a vessel was lying in dock and became, for some purpose under the law, a factory, the inspection was very much better done than when it was lying in the roads or was not brought under the Factory Acts. I most seriously disagree with that suggestion. The inspections, I believe, are done with the greatest assiduity and
they cover a very large amount of ground. They look into the condition of every kind of ship, large and small, and the result has been that the standards in British ports—I say it without the least hesitation—are higher than in the ports of any other country in the world. That is the result not only of the general spirit of the Mercantile Marine as a whole, but of the complete organisation of the Board of Trade, both in Whitehall and in the out-ports. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman is going to distinguish between what is done here in Whitehall and what is done in the out-ports. It is impossible for the officials here to carry on inspections. They have to do their work through the ordinary channels of office routine. It is impossible for the people in the ports to do the work necessary at the centre. Each have their own duties to perform. I do not hesitate to say that these practical men, the Board of Trade surveyors, are as fine a body of technicians as you will find anywhere in the world. I had experience of their work long before I came to occupy this post. If is in these circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman said he had been provided with a number of instances of the bad condition of ships. He produced a rotten rivet which I think he said came from a lifeboat.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Had I been able to make the exhibit larger I could have brought sacks of them.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman suggests that lifeboats in passenger vessels are all in that condition. How do we know that that lifeboat has actually been in use recently? We have no evidence of that. Any evidence of that kind which has any bearing on the losses recently will, I presume, come out at the inquiry.

Mr. GREENWOOD: These were taken out of the lifeboat of an R.M.S.P. boat last Friday. This boat is in active commission.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Well, the right hon. Gentleman knows something about the rules of evidence. He knows that that could not be accepted as full and complete evidence in a case of that kind. The main suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman was that we at the
Board of Trade were more interested in ships than we were in seamen. He does not bring anything to support that charge. I think I can show—as I have shown in other Debates during the past few months—that the Board of Trade has not been lacking in its duties. It has been continuously screwing the standard up, year by year, in all the essential conditions for the employment of our men, wherever they have to do with the accommodation given them. There has been a continuous raising of the standard. There is no one with any working knowledge of our merchant ships, whether old or new, who does not realise that that is the case.
I come to a very much more serious matter, and that is the losses that have taken place during this terribly severe winter. That some of the vessels trading in the North Atlantic have gone down is a matter of regret, no matter for what cause it may be; whether from the overwhelming of these vessels in tempest or by some material defect in the vessels themselves. At all events, in two or three cases entire crews have disappeared, and it is doubtful whether we shall ever have any evidence of what brought about the calamity. But the right hon. Gentleman seems to think that we have never thought of having an inquiry on this subject till it was suggested by himself. He drew a long comparison between what happens with the Ministry of Transport in the case of a railway accident, and a number of other accidents where inquiry is held immediately there is a calamity. Apparently he does not know what happens at the Board of Trade. If there is a loss such as has been discussed today, an inquiry takes place automatically within the Department by the Department's own officials; and the inquiry then made may provide us with grounds for believing that we should have what is called a formal investigation. That is, of course, a much more solemn court. It is open to the public in a way which the departmental inquiry is not; and it does bring out, as we know by experience, all the known facts in cases of this kind. The Board of Trade inquiries, internally, have been going on in each of these cases as they have occurred whenever we had any material on which to work. I must interpolate here that
in some of these cases, I regret to say, the possibility of getting material has gone for ever. That does not prevent us making use of all the information we can get from any other quarter. Therefore, nothing which has been contributed to the Debate this afternoon or to previous Debates would be foreign to an inquiry or an investigation which is made on the broadest possible lines.
When I went through the material which has been collected I came to the conclusion that, though the number of ships lost was not very large, yet every loss meant the disappearance of a whole crew and the breadwinners of a considerable number of families, and I felt that we might draw some good out of the experience which has been gained with regard to bad weather in the case of some of these disasters. I have, therefore, provided under the Merchant Shipping Act for the setting up of a formal investigation—a court under a wreck commissioner in the usual way. I am glad to say that I have been able to obtain the services of Lord Merrivale, who has had long experience of these matters, to preside over the inquiry. The inquiry will cover all the recent losses which have been referred to. The losses seemed to have occurred in the same quarter during the same period of weather. I thought it as well that we should take the whole of them together. Lord Merrivale will have it open to him to have an inquiry covering the widest possible ground. I hope that every effort will be made to provide him with such material as is available. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to be so good as to allow the communications which have passed through his hands also to reach Lord Merrivale. Obviously, anything which is germane to these losses ought to be brought in as material for this inquiry. But do not let us run away with the idea that losses in the British Mercantile Marine have got out of hand or are more serious than usual. I have here returns covering the whole period from 1921 down to last year. For last year we have not the complete return, but we can give them approximately. During that period losses have been lower than they were in the previous period of 20 years, taken year by year, and the number of lives lost since 1928 has fallen to an average of 39 per annum. That is a very remarkable result. When one
remembers the losses that used to take place in the past it is wonderful that the figure should have come down to such a low average, in the last six years, as 39 per annum. In these circumstances and with these figures before me I venture to say that it is nothing but the grossest exaggeration to regard this industry as being so much more dangerous than others. As a matter of fact, it would be a very fortunate thing if some other great industries in this country had a death roll as small as this. Though it is small, obviously we must take full advantage of the machinery provided by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and of the custom which has grown up in the Mercantile Marine. For that reason, I hope the House will feel that there is no necessity for us here to go into the merits of these cases, and to make accusations or charges, or to produce evidence which is obviously ex parte when we can hand the whole thing over to a wreck commissioner, in whom we have complete confidence.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: What do these figures with regard to losses cover?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: They cover all losses through founderings.

Mr. NICHOLSON: Whether all hands are lost or not?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Oh yes, certainly. It is the number of lives lost.

Sir BASIL PETO: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can give the figures relating to losses that have already occurred this year, because some of the vessels have gone down with all hands?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have not got the figures for this year.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Will this inquiry cover the loss of the "La Crescenta"? How far does it go back?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It covers the well-known case of the "Usworth" and the case of the "Blairgowrie," the "Mill-pool" and the "La Crescenta." Those are the four important cases.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. WEST: We all deplore the tragic losses which have been referred to this afternoon, and most of us will await with
great interest the result of the inquiry which is to be entered upon. Until the result of that inquiry is available, I do not intend to follow on what has been said. Nor, indeed, do I desire further to enlarge upon what have been called "the slums of the seas." I believe that just as the question of house slums has taken nearly half a century to become an important factor in the minds of our people it will probably take another 50 years before it is agreed that we need a common national policy to do away with the slums of the sea. I have no doubt that in 1980 or 1990 we shall have a great slum clearance on the shipping side. That is a long time to wait.
I intend to speak for a short time on something to which I would have hoped all Members in every part of the House would have been anxious to lend their support. We are all desirous of decreasing unemployment, and here we have in our shipping industry, so it seems to me, a great opportunity for providing employment for more British seamen. I can never understand why Members of other parties who claim to be so keen on giving preference to British goods and British services should not be, by virtue of that same principle, equally keen on giving preference to the employment of British white sailors on British ships. But it is obvious that hon. Members are not so united about giving employment to British sailors as they are about having British goods produced. For example, we have been told from official sources that the total number of coloured and foreign seamen in our ships is over 40 per cent. I think that the actual figure, including lascars, Chinamen, and other foreign seamen is 43 per cent.

Commander MARSDEN: Brothers.

Mr. WEST: That may be, but I am not so sure that these lascars would be allowed to come into employment in London. I am not against their being employed on the brotherhood idea, but the hon. and gallant Member who interrupts knows very well that it is not a question of brotherhood or non-brotherhood, but a question of cheapness and economy only. He knows that very well. There is this enormous proportion of coloured seamen employed, and, when one tries to get reasonable explanations as to why they are employed, one is met with peculiar
reasons which give no justification of the policy. If you are, as I am, a landlubber and a person who does not know a great deal about shipping and the sea, then when you hear a Member talk about having travelled round the world 10 times or having spent 30 years on ships you are half-inclined to take his opinion as that of an authority; but I find that these statements when examined generally fall to the ground. The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) told me in a previous debate that if I knew anything at all about shipping I ought to realise that lascars were not employed on tramp steamers. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman in question is a shipowner I thought he knew all about it and I therefore felt rather small at the time, but on examination I discovered that that statement was absolutely untrue. I discovered that lascars and coloured seamen generally are employed on many British tramp ships in spite of what the hon. and gallant Member said. That is one example of the false justification offered for what I believe to be a wrong policy.
Again, the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie) said that although lascar seamen received lower rates of pay, it was necessary to employ more of them, and therefore the question of cheapness did not arise. He said it cost more money to employ the coloured seamen because it was necessary to employ a greater number of them. As the hon. Member had been round the world, I think 20 times, and as I have not been round the world once, I bowed to his superior authority at the time, but afterwards I inquired from other experts who had also been round the world, and I am told that that is untrue. The ratio I am told is three to two, that is to say three coloured men can take the place of two British seamen. But that ratio of three to two must be compared with the ratio of the lascar seamen's wages to the British seamen's wages. The average British white seaman is, I am told, paid at least four times as much as the lascar or the Chinaman, and therefore, even allowing for the ratio of three lascars to two white men, when the difference in wages is taken into account it will be seen that the shipowner is making an extraordinary profit on the bargain by employing the coloured men.
Another hon. Member said that lascars were not employed because of their cheapness, but because unfortunately the ordinary white seaman could not stand the work under tropical conditions. It was suggested that the shipowners would rather employ white men—their own countrymen—and decrease unemployment at home, but that they were compelled to employ lascars on boats which had to go into tropical seas. That again appeared at the time to be a reasonable justification, but when I inquired into the matter I find that in this case also the experts who have sailed round the world have been giving me most misleading statements. I find from other experts that Dutch, German and Italian liners and tramp ships employ their own white nationals exclusively, and if an Italian sailor can stand the work in a tropical climate I have no doubt that a British sailor can stand it equally well.
The hon. Gentleman opposite seems to be rather amused at my statement. I suggest that if a Dutch seaman can do the work in the tropics so can a British seaman. According to the creed of hon. Members opposite, a British sailor is surely as good as a Dutch or German sailor, and do not know why the statement should cause any amusement. Not only do German and Dutch companies employ their own nationals exclusively, but some of our own people do likewise. I find that a British company which has 80 steamers in the Persian Gulf employs British seamen exclusively, and surely the Persian Gulf is a place to which the condition mentioned would apply. If this firm, which employs a very large number of sailors, is able to employ British labour exclusively in the Persian Gulf it knocks the bottom out of the argument that British sailors are not able to stand tropical conditions.
Another example of gross misleading of the House was given by the President of the Board of Trade when, in reply to a question of mine, he said that coloured seamen when they signed on under European articles were paid the rates laid down by the Maritime Board. I was rather perplexed at that answer, and I realised that if such were the ease there was not much support for the argument that cheap wages represented the main consideration in employing coloured seamen. But once again I find that I have been misled. It may be
true, it probably is true, that when a coloured seaman, a lascar, is signed on under European articles he is paid the Maritime Board's rate, but the point is that at least 99 per cent. of these coloured seamen are not signed on under European agreements. It is misleading the House to try to make the point that where coloured seamen are signed on under European articles they receive the same pay as British white seamen, because the right hon. Gentleman must have known better than I do that not 1 per cent. of them are so signed on.
Surely the major point is that 99 per cent. are signed on under their Asiatic agreements, and therefore the shipowners have the benefits arising from these shockingly low wage rates, shocking accommodation, and shocking food supplies of which we have heard—all things which while providing higher profits for the shipowners are not compatible in my opinion with the principles of British justice and fair play. I believe that if hon. Members opposite, instead of trying to discover these peculiar justifications for the employment of cheap foreign coloured sailors would face up to the truth and admit that coloured seamen are employed mainly because they are cheap, their attitude would be much more respected. To try to ride off on misleading and untruthful excuses is not worthy of them. I, as a non-expert, am told by experts that it would be possible to supplant at least 50 per cent. of the coloured seamen and replace them by British sailors who would be paid the National Maritime Board's wages. Surely if that were done it would be acting decently towards the 50,000 British sailors who are at present roaming our ports put of work, and would be much more in keeping with our general protestations as to giving the Britisher preference over the coloured seamen in Hong Kong, Aden, Singapore or anywhere else.

5.25 p.m.

Commander MARSDEN: I am very glad that the Opposition chose this subject for to-day's Debate, because to whatever party we may belong I think there is no question nearer all our hearts than the welfare of our seamen. I do not accuse the Opposition of insincerity in this matter, but surely they are inconsistent, because, whenever any definite step forward towards bettering the em-
ployment of sailors is proposed, they are the first people to vote against it.

Dr. ADDISON: Can the hon. and gallant Member give an instance?

Commander MARSDEN: Certainly. There was the case of the subsidy.

Dr. ADDISON: But the hon. and gallant Member must know that we voted against the subsidy because the sailors were not getting their share of the benefit.

Commander MARSDEN: I have said that I am not accusing hon. Members of insincerity, but I repeat that they are inconsistent. Let us go further into this matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) made a speech about the conditions under which our merchant seamen go to sea. It was a speech which was intended to move the House, and no doubt did so to a certain extent, and the right hon. Gentleman referred to the case of a ship with her fore-peak with 16 feet of water, and generally in an unseaworthy state. But what was the attitude of the Opposition towards seamen of another type? We had a Debate recently concerning the seamen of the Royal Navy. We had before us the question of obsolete ships, of old cruisers, of guns which were not up to date, of ships that could not steam as fast as enemy ships, of ships that were really past their time and were due to be replaced by modern vessels, if our men were to be able to meet an enemy on equal terms, and have a fair chance. The Opposition voted against the proposed improvements. Therefore, I think I am justified in saying that we must treat a lot of what we have heard as mere talk. The truth of the matter is that the Opposition think they have got hold of a good story, and they are going to stick to it, but in fact it does not bear examination.
I have the utmost sympathy with the general idea of bettering the position of the merchant seaman. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield made a number of assertions, as evidence for which he had his pockets full of rivets which I suppose he has taken away with him to show to his friends outside. But what do his assertions amount to? He said he did not make any accusation
against the Board of Trade inspectors, and that they were in fact a very worthy class. It was the President of the Board of Trade and his Department that the right hon. Gentleman was after, not the inspectors. Yet if it were true that ships had been passed with their rivets in the condition which he described, the inspectors were the people to get at, because in that case they would not have been carrying out the instructions of the Board of Trade. Although I am very proud to hold a merchant master's certificate, I do not profess to have a close knowledge of merchant ships, but my friends in the Merchant Service when they want to "grouse"—and sailors like to "grouse" occasionally—complain that the Board of Trade inspector will take nothing for granted, that he refuses to accept the carpenter's sounding of water in the hold, but must sound it for himself, that he insists on tapping all the timbers in the lifeboats to see that they are sound, and on examining the paintwork round the rivets to see that there is no rust. The complaint is not that the Board of Trade inspector slurs over his work, but that he is over-enthusiastic about it.
I do not wish to talk unnecessarily on this subject. I believe that we all desire the same thing. We feel very much the losses which have occurred among these ships during the recent winter, and we welcome the statement that there is to be a searching inquiry under a most able chairman. We sincerely trust that the original cause of these accidents may be found and proposals made to prevent their recurrence. Whatever the original cause of the founderings may have been, there is not the slightest doubt as to how the ships sank. They sank almost certainly, because the helm or engines for some reason ceased to function, the propeller stopped, and the ship became unmanageable, and got into the trough, beam on to the waves. Enormous seas were crashing over her and thousands of tons of water fell on her decks. In such cases, sooner or later something gives way, usually the hatch covers or something of that sort; then ventilators get washed away and water gets into the bottom of the ship, which starts labouring and rolling; more seas come over her, and eventually the point comes when she sinks.
That is undoubtedly how these ships went to their end. What caused the breakdown is a matter for investigation. I would like to make one suggestion, which is not only mine, but has been suggested to me by many merchant seamen, and I have seen it in merchant sailors' periodicals and journals. It is, that steamers of under a certain horsepower and strength should be fitted with a certain amount of canvas, because if they had mizzen and head sails the chances are that they would be able to heave to and to weather the gale until assistance was forthcoming. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade and his advisers may consider that as another safety move for the smaller-sized ships. I repeat what has been said about the Socialist party. We are making every effort to find employment for these men, and yet, what was the cry when the subsidy was granted? It was that it was going into the shipowners' pockets. Would all the bad ships and the black-legging ships to which they refer be in that condition if reasonable profits were being made?
The one word which hon. Members in the Opposition hate is "profits," and yet without profits the ships could not function at all; they would be laid by and there would be further unemployment. Without profits nothing would happen, and yet, if there is any suggestion of the word, hon. Members opposite start objecting. We might examine that question much further, but I can only say from my small experience of the Opposition that with all their talk about unemployment, they would much sooner 99 men went out of employment than that one owner should make a £5 note. It is against their policy that any profits should be made. Let the working people suffer and the sailor be put out of employment, but, they say, do not let the shipowner make anything or we shall lose all the votes in our constituencies if we agree to any such proposal. In such arguments as the party in Opposition have advanced towards the betterment of the conditions of our merchant seamen, I heartily support them. I can only say that I hope the inquiry will lead to something which will ensure that British seamen shall go to sea only in ships which are absolutely seaworthy.

5.34 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: I am sure it was with great satisfaction that the House heard the President of the Board of Trade announce that there was to be a full and comprehensive inquiry into the foundering of these various vessels. He said that every relevant bit of information that had any bearing on these sinkings would be brought to the attention of the Board for inquiry to be made into it. The President also told us, and indeed it is of the essence of the matter, that in these particular cases it is a matter of great difficulty to obtain any evidence at all because, as he reminded the House, in two of the four cases to which I referred in my question yesterday, the vessels sank with all hands. They were the "Millpool" and "Blairgowrie." The "Saxilby," which was sunk in September, 1933, under apparently similar conditions, also left no trace of evidence behind which could be brought before any court of inquiry. As far as the five vessels referred to in my question yesterday were concerned, three of the five went down with all hands and left no trace of any evidence. That being so, I think the answer I received yesterday can hardly be regarded as satisfactory, because the Parliamentary Secretary told us:
The extent to which recent casualties have been due to failures of hatches will no doubt be brought out in the reports of the formal inquiries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1935; col. 1580, Vol. 299.]
I hold that that is impossible. All we know—and this, at any rate, will come before the inquiry—is that in nearly every case where these vessels were lost, the final, or nearly final, SOS message spoke of certain holds being full of water. The probability is that those holds would not have been full of water if the hatch covers had not given way. I think that that is a very material fact, and, in view, of that, it appears to me that enormously more information can be gained by Lord Merrivale and those who are pursuing this matter, if the inquiry is sufficiently wide to take into account the experiences of vessels which, perhaps because of different construction, have been able to weather the most appalling gales during the past winter and come through safely. I do not think I need apologise to the House for reading a really thrilling account of the vessel to which I referred in my question yesterday, the "Arcwear,"
which met with just the sort of weather and conditions which would have sent most vessels to the bottom, and which was no doubt responsible for the loss of many of the vessels to which I have referred. May I read the account of the Master, Captain A. Hawkins—
On Sunday, the 24th February, the barometer, which was very high at 30.20 inches, began to fall, and the wind increased in strength considerably, reaching a strong gale by midnight with a very heavy sea running. During this period the ship was behaving excellently. On the 25th, the weather became so bad that I hove to at 1.30 p.m. with the engines just turning enough to keep steerage way"—
That is the condition to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Battersea (Commander Marsden) referred as a condition that makes for safety. It is vital to keep the engines turning.
—with the sea about two points on the port bow. Heading this way the ship was riding beautifully and was shipping practically no water. At 5.50 p.m. we noticed ahead what appeared to be one sea trying to override another and rising to a considerable height. From the bridge the top of the sea was in line with the mast cross-trees, and there was no doubt about it being a tidal wave.
The ship tried to rise to the wave, but could not get high enough, and the huge wave curled over the forecastle head without doing any damage there, and fell bodily on No. 1 hatch with a report as if a large gun had been fired, and shook the ship from stem to stern. The wave filled the whole of the forward well, passing over the top of the navigating bridge, flooding the wheelhouse, chart room, and all the midship accommodation, broke all the port lights on the upper and lower bridge fronts, bent the rails at the front of the upper and lower bridges, smashed down the engine room skylights, wrenching the skylight support rail stanchions out of the skylight top with a piece of plate attached, flooded all the engineers' accommodation, extinguished the electric lights, travelled over the after well, and flooded the crew's accommodation.
The tremendous blow from this single huge sea smashed in five only of the sections of the steel hatch cover over No. 1 hold, the remaining 43 sections remaining intact. As the cover sections on all the hatches are interchangeable, the five damaged sections were quickly replaced by five from the 'tween deck hatchway of the cross-bunker. At 9 p.m. the weather modulated somewhat and I was able to resume my course and speed. All the ventilators on the forward well were smashed; the boats were lifted out of their chocks and moved aft, but were held by the gripes and guys.
On further examination I found No. 1 hatch coaming set in on the port side and the deck at the side of the hatchway set down, although these received a much
lighter blow than the hatch cover; the derrick table support bracket is also set in slightly. There is no damage to any of the other four steel hatch covers on the weather deck, and there appears to be very little damage to the grain in No. 1 hold in the way of the damaged cover. I am positive that if wood covers had been on No. 1 hatch the complete cover would have gone, and the ship endangered, and most possibly No. 2 hatch cover would also have gone and the ship lost. On previous voyages ordinary heavy seas have fallen on the steel hatch covers, and, as you are aware, they are in as good condition as when they were fitted.
I have read that to the House because I want to impress on my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that he must make the inquiry wide enough so as to profit by the experience of vessels that did not go to the bottom with all hands. Then, perhaps, we shall find out what special precautions in construction are likely to prevent these terrible accidents in future. A letter which I received this morning from Sir Joseph Isherwood said:
The locked steel interchangeable hatches fitted on the vessel and referred to in the report were, in the opinion of a number of experts who examined the ship on arrival home, responsible for her safety.
Modern conditions involve, necessarily, very large openings to the holds. It is necessary for ships to take motor cars and larger machines, and very long and bulky pieces of freight are now regularly lowered through the hatchway into the hold. I do not say it has anything to do with it, but we must remember that the Plimsoll line has been altered slightly in the recent Safety-at-Sea Convention, and when you get a steel ship with an immense proportion of the deck consisting of the hatch covers to the holds, it is obvious that we must have a form of construction in which these covers are as strong as the deck itself. Otherwise there will not be safety.
May I draw the attention of the House to the analogous question which has arisen in naval construction? As a result of our experience at Jutland and during the Great War we have found that now that our ships are liable to bombs from aeroplanes dropped upon the decks and to the dropping fire of long range high projectiles, it is necessary to have an altogether different strength of armament for decks than existed before. There is an exact analogy between that and our merchant vessels. If we are to get such freights as there are, and we
want them badly enough in order to employ our ships, we have to have these large openings to the holds. Therefore if the inquiry is wide enough to get evidence from vessels that have not foundered, where the captains are of opinion that certain definite factors in the construction of the vessel have saved him from going to the bottom, that will be evidence infinitely more valuable than such evidence as is obtainable—and it is very slight—in the case of vessels that have actually foundered.
I should like to know what information the Board of Trade have as to the pressure which can be exerted by a sea falling upon the deck of a ship in the manner I have described. What pressure do the regulations of the Board of Trade and the insurance companies require hatch covers to withstand? Those are material facts, and I hope they will be brought out in the inquiry, or perhaps the hon. Gentleman who is to reply can tell us. It may be held that I am suggesting new regulations which would impose a further burden upon our merchant ships. We know perfectly well—at least we on this side of the House are convinced of it—that there are no better constructed and better-found merchant ships in the world than British merchant ships, and, if we were to require that our vessels engaged in the North Atlantic and other oceans where heavy seas are likely to be encountered should have steel hatch covers, or covers equally strong, it might be protested that this would add another burden to British shipping by increasing the cost of construction.
I think I am entitled to point out, in view of these sinkings, five vessels having gone to the bottom, three of them with all hands, that there are other people who are interested in this matter. In the first place, there are the people who send their freight—valuable freight—across the seas. Vessels constructed in the manner I have suggested would, I think, command the pick of such freights as are offering, and that is exactly what we want to get. Further, Lloyd's and other marine insurance people will take note of the fact that these vessels have been lost, and if, as the outcome of this inquiry, Lord Merrivale says, which I think is very likely, that they have gone down because they filled with water from
above owing to the hatch covers breaking, then Lloyd's will say that vessels fitted with interchangeable steel hatch covers will be granted lower insurance premiums. Therefore, we shall find that the extra cost of construction will be more than offset by the increased competing power of the ship in the freight market on the one hand, and the cheaper insurance rates on the other hand.
I hope my hon. Friend will be able to refer to this matter again, because I do not think it was left in an altogether satisfactory position by his answer yesterday, and I am fortunate in having this opportunity of putting the whole matter before him and the House in a manner such as one cannot possibly do by question and answer. I want such publicity as one gets in a Debate in this House, because this is a very important matter. A most important point in connection with the inquiry is that Lord Merrivale's instructions should be wide enough to allow him to call for evidence from vessels which have not gone to the bottom, but have been through weather of the sort that has sent to the bottom the vessels, the loss of which is the subject of his inquiry. In that way we shall get much more practical results from the inquiry.
Employment on ships is another matter to which I wish to refer. In 1929 an agreement was made by the National Maritime Board that foreign-going vessels of 2,750 tons and over trading outside the Western Europe limits—I need not trouble the House with details of the exact areas to which the agreement applies—should carry three officers. There was only one condition, and that was that the agreement was subject to the supply of navigating officers being adequate for the purpose. I find a note in the Maritime Board's year book that the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, the Mercantile Marine Service Association and the Officers (Merchant Navy) Federation, Limited, shall be the people through whom the question of the adequacy of the supply of officers shall be tested. The test is to be the ability of the bodies I have named, affiliated to the National Maritime Board, to supply a reasonably suitable officer in time to avoid delay in the sailing of a vessel.
I am sorry to hear, though I am not surprised, because I know the conditions of the freight market and the desperate
straits of our shipowners in picking up a living, that quite a number of tramp ship-owning firms have not carried out, and are not carrying out, this agreement. Although, perhaps, the position has been a little better since the subsidy came into operation, we have a long list of ships which have sailed without a certificated third officer which ought to have had one had the agreement been carried out. Under the Merchant Shipping Act two certificated officers only are required. When that agreement was come to in 1929 we hoped that the evil and bad old system of watch and watch and no rest had ended. Under conditions in the North Atlantic such as we have been considering one can imagine what that system means in the wear and tear of the human constitution. We hoped that there would always be an officer, so to speak, in reserve, so that the two officers could get a little reasonable rest between watch and watch. I had hoped that the granting of this subsidy, which was supported from this side of the House and opposed on the opposite benches, would make it certain that where three officers were required under the agreement three officers would be employed. When the agreement was made in 1929 the only proviso was that there should be an adequate supply of officers. Now that there are officers at every port, standing about waiting for the chance of a berth, it seems rather ironical that ships should fee going to sea with only two certificated officers because things are so bad that, presumably, the expense of a third officer cannot be afforded if the ship is to be run at all. The subsidy may make a difference, and I hope that it will at any rate operate to find some further employment for the officers of the merchant service.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I am very glad to have an opportunity of saying a few words on this subject. The hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), in his concluding remarks, mentioned the number of British officers who are unemployed, and said that while his party voted for the subsidy we on this side did not. As it happened, I did vote for the subsidy, and most of my hon. Friends here put forward a very sound reason why they did not vote for it. When the subsidy was under discussion it was sug-
gested from this part of the House that certain protection ought to be given as a condition of the subsidy, and as such protection—the particular protection that was mentioned a few moments ago—was not guaranteed, hon. Members on this side did vote against the subsidy. The case which has been presented here today is practically an indictment, and it must be brought against the Board of Trade, but not for a moment must anybody think that we mean to imply that the President of the Board of Trade is responsible for all the tragedies of the sea. For the purpose of debate, and as a matter of form, we must make our attack upon the President of the Board of Trade if we are to put forward what we regard as a grievance. As to the personnel of our mercantile marine, there is nothing to be said. I will go so far as to say that on all the seven seas no finer body of men are to be found than those sailing in British ships, and, therefore, there is no question here of being a "Little Englander" and belittling our mercantile marine. My constituency is composed of those who go down to the sea in ships, and therefore on any question concerning either conditions in the forecastle or the firing of a vessel I am pretty well au fait with the technical terms.
I was surprised at the flippant manner in which the President of the Board of Trade turned on one side an intervention I made during his speech when he was dealing with deck hands. It was a pertinent question, because deck hands have never been defined. In this House one must not show any temerity. When the President of the Board of Trade is delivering his oration no one must intervene. The Floor of the House must be left entirely to the President of the Board of Trade, and when the oracle has spoken what he says must be accepted as authentic. I am not going to accept it as authentic. We have never had a definition of a deck hand, and I want to know whether two youths are to be considered equal to two men as deck hands. There can be no ambiguity about that question, and it is no good the President of the Board of Trade saying, "You might have two old and decrepit men in one case and two fine young men in the other." I might come into the category of the old and
decrepit men and he might come into the category of the able young men, but that was not the question. What I asked, and what I want to know is, whether two young men with no experience are as fully qualified to be on deck as two able-bodied men with, at least four years' seafaring experience?
From the point of view of cheap labour and the manning of our ships, that is an important point to those shipping firms who engage only competent deck hands. There are firms that consider that they can put these youths on board. The President of the Board of Trade said that we might find an able, physically fit, young man coming from a school, a training college or a ship, but the fact of the matter is—I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make a note of this—that most of the men and the youths who come on board as apprentices have come directly from home, and have had no seafaring experience. When we inquire into the manning of ships it is of no use to turn us to one side by that sort of answer, or to use the technique: "The Opposition know nothing at all about the question; therefore I can turn them down, and there is no need to give any reply." Any right-thinking man would give an answer, not according to a lower standard but from the highest standard, whether he were asked by an ignoramus or not. When questions are asked, the questioners may know as much about the matter as he who has to reply. I was always taught that when I was at school, and it would be better if the President of the Board of Trade would bear that in mind when he is dealing with matters which are vitally important.
I receive my instructions on these matters from those who have given most of their lives to the sea. During the last few months there has been an appalling loss of life. Six ships have gone with a total loss of life, and yet we are not able to get any account of them. It would appear that they have to go among the casualties of the sea that are unknown, and it has to be said that in the British House of Commons we are not to ask pertinent questions about them. There were the "Saxilby," the "Mill-pool," the "Usworth," and the "La Crescenta." The last one to go was the "Blairgowrie." I hold in my hand a
letter from a master mariner, who is a past master and holds an ex-master's certificate. He writes to me from a ecrtain part of the country:
As I said before, I am thankful that I have not got to go to sea in any such rattle-traps. I may tell you that you are up against a tough proposition,
What does he mean by that? He means that when we try to deal with the unseaworthiness of the ships which go down with loss of life, we are up against the shipowners and their £5 note which was referred to by an hon. Member a few moments ago. I would much prefer that the shipowners in the country lost all their money rather than that sons and fathers who sail from our ports should go to their doom in rotten ships, and that that should never be pointed out in this House. Questions of £5 or £10 are apparently a first consideration, rather than the human life in our vessels. That is a wrong sort of opinion to express, and from my knowledge of a good many shipowners I am convinced that that is not the point of view which the shipowners of this country would put forward. Our indictment to-day is not against the general body of the shipowners of this country but against those who use unseaworthy ships. We feel that a Board of Trade inspection ought to take place. Lord Merrivale has been appointed to open an inquiry. I do not know whether it will be an inquiry pro forma, or whether it will give the fullest opportunity for investigation. Three or four months before a ship goes down we get letters sent to us privately, not only from mothers and fathers but from officers who have sailed on the ships, pointing out that there are leakages, that the ship is unseaworthy and that when she goes to sea she will sink. One mother writes—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I am not quite sure to what the hon. Member is referring, but I am sure that he will realise that, the investigation having been decided upon, certain matters are sub judice, and must not be gone into or discussed on merits.

Mr. LOGAN: I will be subject to your Ruling. I think it will be within the rules of order if I do not give names, but only broadly mention statements that have been made, and if I do not generalise
or give any particular point that would be relevant to any evidence in regard to loss of life. I may point out that certain expressions of opinion have been made. It should be perfectly in order to say that a very responsible body of shippers in Liverpool made a comment last week in regard to the appalling loss of life at sea, and pointed out that it was absolutely necessary that the Board of Trade should institute such an inquiry as has now been forecast, as that would be in the best interests of the shipping of the country. On that we are perfectly at one. I do not wish to say anything that will prejudice an impartial inquiry or handicap those who will have to deal with the matter. I will, therefore, take another phase of the question. I have ventilated my opinion, and I will leave it at that. I am particularly interested in the aspect of the unseaworthiness of our ships and the loss of life.
If ever there were a subject that called for the consideration of this House it is that of the manning of boats and the employment of white labour. I am convinced, whatever the opinion of the Board of Trade may be, that this House will have to make up its mind on the loss of life at sea, the management of ships and the employment of white labour. There are tens of thousands of unemployed, and no reason has been put forward by any Minister why the white labour of our cities is walking about without employment, except that we are under contract. I find black and coolie labour fully employed. That is no solution to the problem, and is not to the benefit of our shipping. If it is a question of cheap labour there ought to be a subsidy in order to get rid of cheap labour and to bring in our own white labour to man our ships. I have yet to learn that, sailing any of the seas of the world, coolie labour is better than white. I have yet to learn that white labour has not been able to travel on any part of the sea of the world. In all seriousness I suggest that from the point of view of the prestige of the British nation and of security, employment ought to be found for Britishers. Officers of the mercantile marine ought not to have to walk the streets of our great cities.
Not many months ago a ship sailed out of the Port of Liverpool with officers
serving as able-bodied seamen. Ex-masters and men with masters' certificates are unemployed while negroes in the same port get employment. I have had, standing before me and asking for public assistance, a man who had a past-master's certificate, and I have only been able to give him 15s. I have felt ashamed. A man with a double-master's certificate has stood before me and asked for relief of 15s. to be granted, and that was for one who had sailed the sea, but, because of redundancy of ships, had got into a bad way. He could not get a boat. He had parted with all his home. He had tried for five years, had had to part with everything he had in life, and finally had had to come to the Poor Law. It is of no use to talk about contracts, or agreements made with other countries, when our own men, our own flesh and blood who have fought for us, are wanting food and sustenance. Have we not the right to speak in the British House of Commons for our own men and to demand that the time is now for the British nation to make the provision which is absolutely essential for those who ventured their lives in a great war, and who now call upon us to come to their aid?
The officers and men of the Mercantile Marine do not want public assistance; they want the right to sail in British ships. They want the right to be leaders in the navigation of the world. They want the right to take their proper place. The Government should see that that type of labour gets its proper place. When there is danger, coolie labour is no use on a boat. When there is danger, British white labour is there, and always leaves a name of which the British Mercantile Marine can be proud. I speak on behalf of the Port of Liverpool when I say that this Debate must not be taken as meaning nothing. The Minister is fully conscious of what I mean and I hope that he will give every attention to finding some means, even at this late hour, of giving the protection to the Mercantile Marine which is so necessary in order that the men may be placed upon those ships, and that there may be proper supervision. The definition must be more explicit, and it must come more definitely from the Board of Trade than has been explained to-day. My purpose in rising is to make known to the House that we feel at one on the question of shipping,
which affects the whole life of our nation. It is not a party matter but one which strikes into the home of every man, woman and child in this Britain of ours. Because I feel so keenly, I raise my protest and ask that there may be some redress. This is the only opportunity that there has been in the course of this Debate.

6.13 p.m.

Admiral of the Fleet Sir ROGER KEYES: After the distressing charges which were made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) the whole House was, I am sure, delighted to hear from the President of the Board of Trade that there is to be a thorough inquiry into the recent loss of life in merchant ships, and that the inquiry is to be under the chairmanship of such a distinguished person as Lord Merrivale. The hon. and gallant Member for North Battersea (Commander Marsden) spoke of the inconsistency of the Socialist party. Ever since I have been in this House I have pleaded that our obsolete ships should be replaced and the men who man them should be given a fair chance. The last time I did it an hon. Member from the Opposition side of the House said that I was trying to make another war, or words to that effect. The hon. Member for Abeldare (Mr. G. Hall), whose devotion to the Service to which I belong is thoroughly appreciated by the Navy, was put up the other day to move a reduction of the personnel of the Navy. He knows perfectly well that the personnel of the Navy was greatly reduced during the two years of Socialistic administration. Whom did that hit? It hit the seamen and their wives. The Navy is so under-manned that men who have served abroad, particularly those in some classes, have to go straight off abroad again after a few months at home. Reduction in personnel for which the Socialists voted would have hit the welfare and the happiness of the men of the Fleet still harder. The British Shipping (Assistance) Bill was opposed through all its stages by the Opposition, with the exception, apparently, of the hon. Member who has just spoken. Only a few days ago I received a letter from a friend of mine, the master of a tramp vessel now at Rosario. He wrote:
The subsidy is now au established fact, and I hope some of the poor fellows who have been out of work for so long will get berths. The thing that is noticeable here is that ships which sailed without third mates and fourth engineers have been telegraphed by their owners to sign them on at once.
He goes on to say:
I think the subsidy may cut freights, and the shippers will benefit. This in time, may drive the Greek and Italian out, which may save us.
There is first-class testimony that the British Shipping (Assistance) Bill, which the Socialists attacked so hotly, is doing good. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) told us that he voted for the subsidy, and said that there ought to be a larger subsidy if it would help to employ British seamen.
I would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question. He will remember that some Amendments were moved by the Opposition, and also by hon. Members associated with me, with the object of getting introduced into the Bill an undertaking that the shipping subsidy should only apply to ships carrying a fair proportion of British officers and men. The President of the Board of Trade gave an undertaking that, although this could not form part of the Bill, for various reasons, it would be implemented administratively. That was very satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Board of Trade would only give the subsidy to ships that observed the National Maritime Board's recommendation. The National Maritime Board has always pleaded that three officers should be borne in every ship, in addition to the master, but frequently this is not observed. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would make it one of the conditions of granting the subsidy that a ship should carry a master and three navigating officers, because, if there are only two, it means watch and watch. I have kept watch and watch for some weeks at a time, and it is a very hard life. It means about 90 hours on duty in a week, and it cannot make for the efficiency of the ship if the watchkeepers work such long hours. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that any firm which is granted the subsidy will have to employ three navigating officers as well as the captain. It seems that firms are
anticipating this, to judge from the letter I have just quoted, which says that owners are actually telegraphing to their ships to engage a third officer.
There is another point. The Socialist Opposition have referred to the slums of the sea, but the British Shipping (Assistance) Act, which they opposed so hotly, has a scrap-and-build Clause, and this affords a splendid opportunity for owners to get rid of these old slum ships, as they are called, and replace them with modern ships. I would urge that the Socialist Opposition, if the subsidy already granted is increased next year, instead of opposing it should support it, and thus benefit the men who go down to the sea in ships.

6.20 p.m.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: I would like at the outset to say how pleased I was to hear the Minister deal with the question of employment in ships. It is a question which I have raised at various times in this Parliament, and the answers I have received have never given me any satisfaction. I do not say that they are altogether satisfactory now, but I am glad to hear from the Minister that some steps are being taken to ensure that more British seamen are employed in British ships. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has not always a free hand in the matter, but certainly where, as is the case to-day, shipowners are enjoying the benefits of a subsidy provided by this House, he has a complete lever, and I hope he will use it for all he is worth in order to see that these owners only employ British seamen in their ships.
Another question which I have raised in the House on various occasions is that of inter-coastal trading. A very sore point with many people engaged in the Mercantile Marine is the fact that, although they are precluded from entering practically all foreign ports and engaging in any form of coastal trade, either picking up passengers or cargo, foreign steamers are allowed to come here and engage in inter-coastal trade. That is very unfair. I know, from the answers I have received in the past, that I shall be told to-day that, as compared with the total shipping of this country, the percentage of inter-coastal trading is negligible. I think that the last time I asked a question on the subject I was told that it was 3 or 4 per cent. But even 3 or 4 per cent. is an important margin
when one considers the condition of our shipping industry to-day. When the Minister gives the figures to-day, as he will, I would like him to consider the question from an Empire point of view, and, if he has the figures of inter-coastal trading in Empire ports as well as home ports, it would be very interesting to know what they are. I think that here again he has an opportunity of helping British shipping if he will approach Empire countries with a view to seeing that, if regulations are made, they are enforced throughout the whole Empire. I feel confident that in that way he could do a great deal for our shipping industry.
Further, I think a great deal might be done in the direction of co-ordinating the shipping industry, and especially coastal shipping, with road and rail transport. The problem of road transport is becoming a growing one, considered in conjunction with our railways, but, while it is very often discussed in conjunction with our railway system, no one ever seems to mention it in connection with our shipping industry, in spite of the fact that the last Road Traffic Act contained provisions for co-ordinating the three services. I should like to hear if anything has been done since the Road Traffic Act was passed, containing that Clause, in the way of co-ordinating shipping with road and rail transport. If road transport is to grow up, as it is growing every day, to the detriment of our coastal shipping, it is very important that some action should be taken by the Government to see that the interests of shipping are protected. I should like to hear some statement from the Minister as to whether any action has been taken in co-ordinating these services, because there is a great deal of overlapping in the transport services to-day.
Another point that I want to raise is with regard to inter-Imperial shipping. The other day I asked a question of the Colonial Secretary with regard to the use of foreign ships between Cyprus and Palestine, and I was informed that no British ships were working on that service. It is a very serious situation that, when shipping interests in this country are clamouring for subsidies and assistance, there are certain very important ports exporting and importing British goods from and to Empire ports, and it is necessary to use foreign ships to transport those goods. Surely something
can be done by the Board of Trade to encourage British shipping interests to trade between these ports, so that our interests may be protected and at the same time more employment may be found for British seamen.

Sir B. PETO: Is it not a fact that there are services from London to Cyprus?

Captain MACDONALD: It may be that there are services from London to Cyprus, but not from Cyprus to Palestine.

Sir B. PETO: Would not our ships go on to Palestine if the trade were there?

Captain MACDONALD: The trade is there, but it is being carried by foreign ships. I am informed by Ministers that all these goods should be carried in British ships, but they cannot get any British shipping interests to make contacts. The hon. Baronet may know more about the matter than I do, but I should like to know from the Minister if what I have stated is the fact. The statement was made to me the other day, not in reply to a, question, but as the result of further inquiries. If it be the fact, it is very serious, and I would urge the Minister to look into it. The same thing applies to Rumania, where there is an opportunity for British shipping to extend and at the same time look after British interests.
A very important question, which has not been touched upon to-day, is the question of British pilots. Year after year the position of the British pilot has been brought to the notice of the Board of Trade. Nobody would deny that the British pilot is the best pilot in the world. He spends his whole life learning his trade; he is on duty at all times and in all weathers outside every port in Great Britain; and yet it is a fact that there are ports in this country where ships of a certain tonnage, and at some ports of any tonnage, are allowed to use the port without having a British pilot on board. That is a thing which would not be tolerated, and is not tolerated, in any other country in the world. Master mariners will always engage a pilot when there is a fog or a storm, but when the weather is good, and they can find their own way into port, they do not employ a pilot. Sometimes, indeed, they use the subterfuge of waiting till a ship goes into port with a pilot on board, and then sneaking in afterwards. In that way
the British pilot loses his dues, and he considers that he has a very just grievance.
I should like the Board of Trade really to consider this question, and see if the same policy cannot be adopted in this country as is adopted abroad. There it is compulsory for every ship-owner to contribute towards the pilotage, and the result is that pilot dues are much lower than they are in this country, and, whether or not a ship uses a pilot, the ship-owner has to contribute towards the dues. Surely, that is a policy which might easily be adopted in this country. I have several times asked questions about it, but I have never received any satisfactory answer. Several times I have been present when deputations of pilots have come to interview Members of this House and lay their grievances before us, which we have passed on to the Board of Trade, and yet they still suffer from the same grievances from which they have suffered every year since I have been in this House. I should like the Minister when he is replying, if he has any answer to this question, to let us have it to-day in order that we may try to satisfy this very worthy and important body of people that their interests are being safeguarded in this House. At the present time they feel that they are being sacrificed in the interests of foreigners, because no British ship can enter a foreign port without a pilot abroad, and they cannot understand why foreigners should be able to come here and ignore their skilled pilotage and try to make entry into our ports. It is also extremely dangerous from the navigation point of view to have inexperienced foreigners using such a narrow river as the Thames or using the Bristol Channel, and there are very often accidents as a result. It is very important that this question should be looked into and steps taken to look after the interests of this very important service.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. G. NICHOLSON: I wish briefly to refer to a subject which has already been raised to-day, namely, the question of the employment of alien seamen on the ships of this country. I quite realise the great difficulties that exist in discriminating against coloured seamen who are British subjects, but I also have a strong feeling
that the Board of Trade is not sufficiently aware not only of the uneasiness but of the grave misapprehension that exists in our ports. My plea, therefore, to the Board of Trade is that the Government should make a very clear statement of policy and give definite statistics of the number of aliens and coloured seamen in our ships. The other day one of my constituents wrote saying that there were 50,000 aliens employed on British ships. Of course, that is a wild exaggeration, but I submit that while ideas like that are current and widely believed in British ports, there is a clear need for an official Government statement on the subject. The point that really worries me is that, in the present world crisis, when so many trades and industries are in a state of acute depression, we are making a grave mistake in not keeping our equipment and personnel up-to-date. My excuse for speaking to-night is that I represent a small but very important port in Northumberland. I think that that port has possibly a greater percentage of unemployment among its seamen than larger ports. I bring it in because it is on the same footing. It has a shipyard which once employed a large number of men but now does very little, and that only in the way of repairs. My submission is that more attention should be paid, if necessary State attention, to keeping up the seafaring tradition as well as the shipbuilding tradition in these smaller ports. I would not have risen, but I feel that among my constituents there is a very real sense of grievance. The general consideration is that the subsidy is being given but that the employment of British seamen is being neglected. As I said, I intend to be brief, but I hope none the less that the Board of Trade will take my protest to heart and make the true facts known, and also carefully reconsider their position to see whether something can be done to secure greater employment for British seamen, particularly in the smaller ports.

6.36 p.m.

Vice-Admiral G. CAMPBELL: I should like to make one or two remarks on the very important subject which the House has been discussing. It so happens that during my service in the Navy I spent two years in command of the very type of ship that is being discussed to-night, the ordinary tramp steamer, and I spent
two winters in the Atlantic ocean similar to the winter which has been experienced during last year. On one occasion my ship nearly capsized in the Atlantic, and had it done so it would have been, I think, due to act of God. I should like to associate myself with other Members of the House in expressing thanks to the President of the Board of Trade for the fact that he is going to have an inquiry into the whole question of shipping in the Atlantic. I should hardly have thought it necessary for us to thank the President of the Board of Trade for having the inquiry, because I am confident that the Board of Trade are only too ready to investigate every loss which takes place and to listen to every suggestion for the improvement, safety and welfare of merchant shipping. I think that one is apt to exaggerate the loss of these vessels in the Atlantic at the present time, because one does not always remember the fact that a few years back a ship might be posted as missing at Lloyds, and nothing more particularly heard or thought about it except by the Board of Trade and people interested. Nowadays, a ship may possibly send out an S.O.S. by wireless that she is on her beam ends, and vessels of all nationalities rush to the rescue, and in due course we have big headlines in the Press calling attention to the fact that the ship has been lost. It is all to the good, because it helps the community to take more interest in the Mercantile Marine than it used to do, but there is no cause for unnecessary panic. I hardly think that all the ships that have been lost during the winter can possibly be due to act of God, and that is why I welcome the inquiry which is to be set up.
On the occasion to which I referred just now when my ship nearly turned over in the Atlantic Ocean during the worst winter actually I have ever known, it was chiefly due to the fact that the ship had not sufficient horse-power, and although hove-to and steaming with maximum horse-power the ship was going astern all the time, so much so that a man who was washed overboard was washed back again. I remember at one period, when the wind was blowing so hard, and I could not see, but knew myself to be in the vicinity of very dangerous rocks off the west coast of Ireland, I was obliged to turn my ship round for
navigational purposes, and when I turned her round she went beam-on, and but for an act of God I might have gone right over. There might be similar cases to that and no one ever talk about them. My wireless had gone, and I could not send any message. My compass had gone as well, but the ship was well-found and well-manned and her hatches secure and all the rest of it, but in that particular case, if she had gone over, the loss would have been due to insufficient horse-power.
When the inquiry is set up, I hope that it will be remembered by this House and by people in general that it is not necessarily one to find fault or to hang anybody. We want the inquiry not to find fault with this or that person, but to find out the causes, if possible, of these accidents, and to see what steps are necessary to improve our ships and the manning arrangements, and so forth. I hope that they will give particular attention to the question of manning and the efficiency of the boats of these various tramp steamers. We have on record the famous case of the steamship "Trevessa" which was lost 1,600 miles from land where the whole of the crew, except those who died from exposure in boats, were saved, thanks to the seamanlike way in which the lifeboat was manned. Consideration, I hope, will be given to the question of the manning of these merchant ships. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has already said that he is, to some extent anyhow, satisfied with the manning of these vessels. I do not say on this point that they are unmanned, but I think that the limit is too low. One can imagine, if in a gale there is any trouble with the steering gear, that in the course of trying to repair it two or three men may be injured, and if you have half a dozen as deck hands it does not leave many for odd jobs later on. I hope that the question of manning will be considered with a view to seeing whether this really low limit is not a little too low. Then, to have officers working watch and watch for long periods during the winter months and during bad weather is too great a strain for efficiency. I remember in the Navy one of the punishments I used to receive among many others was to keep watch and watch for two or three days
on end, and, personally, I would sooner have two cuts of the cane.

On the question of personnel, I would remind the House that we have in this country good shipowners and bad shipowners. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade knows more about that subject than I do. The conduct of some shipowners, no doubt, makes it necessary for the Board of Trade to keep a watchful eye on the welfare and advancement of men who go to sea. Although the National Maritime Board may lay down certain rates of pay and wages supposed to be received by the officers and men, they must know as well as I do that the officers and men do not always receive the scales laid down by the board. If an owner says to one of his officers, "I am supposed to pay you £10 a month. I am afraid that I cannot do so, and I am going to get a Dutchman in your place, as I can only afford £7 a month." The officer will reply, "I will take the £7, and say nothing more about it." There ought to be some safeguard against a shipowner who does that sort of thing, which occurs, as is well known. The whole question of the service of officers and men in the Merchant Navy requires very careful investigation. A petition on the subject was presented to the President of the Board of Trade last year, and I hope that it will receive his attention. It is absolutely wrong that we should have at the present time men holding masters' certificates who are applying for employment, and suffering what I might almost call the indignity and hardship of having to go to sea as quarter-masters and deckhands. It is not only unfair to these men who have qualified for their master's certificate; it is unfair to men who expect to go to sea as seamen to find their places taken by men who have had the command of ships and hold masters' certificates.

I have referred to the fact that I commanded for a couple of years two merchant ships during the Great War. All my officers and practically all my crew were men of the merchant navy, men of the Royal Naval Reserve. I would remind the President of the Board of Trade that when he is considering the personnel of the merchant navy he must remember that they require to be treated with fair-
ness and generosity at the present time for the services they are rendering in times of peace, because if war comes again we shall not be able to get through without the great merchant navy on whom we have depended so much in the past.

6.41 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: I should like to associate myself with my hon. Friends in expressing our appreciation of the fact that the President of the Board of Trade has arranged to hold a special inquiry into the losses which have been occurring with such tragic frequency during the last 12 months. I am glad that at last the President of the Board of Trade—of course he will not say that it is due to us—is coming down a little bit from that pedestal which he has been occupying in such a superior way for the last few months. It is really a comfort and an encouragement for us to go further and to hope that perhaps, not by making what he describes as outrageous statements but by putting up a good case, we can get him to do a little more. I have before me statements by the President of the Board of Trade on the 4th December and the 12th March in which he did not see that there was any case for such inquiry.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I did not say that.

Dr. ADDISON: I can give the quotations if the right hon. Gentleman desires.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is not distinguishing between what is called an inquiry and what is called a formal investigation.

Dr. ADDISON: That is not the ease. If the right hon. Gentleman really wants me to quote what he said on the 4th December, I will do so. He said that he was afraid that no useful purpose would be served by holding any further inquiry. He now proposes to hold a further inquiry, and I congratulate him. It is not for him to say that he has not altered his opinion; he has, and I congratulate him on doing so. There are one or two points on which there is still a good deal of misgiving. In regard to the subject of manning, the right hon. Gentleman, in his usual artful way, asked us to define an "efficient" seaman. He first asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and on draw-
ing blank from him he turned to me for a definition. I promptly observed that it was not my job. I am not the President of the Board of Trade. I am not charged with the administration of the Merchant Shipping Act, but the right hon. Gentleman is. I have here a case, and I would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the manning of this particular ship. I will give all the particulars if they are required. It is a ship of 3,000 tons and it only carries two able seamen, two ordinary seamen and two apprentices, who are boys. According to the ruling of the Board of Trade apparently they were efficient deckhands, whatever the word efficiency may mean in that case. They worked on the two-watch system and as the carpenter and bosun were really day workers, there were left one able-bodied seaman, a sailor or ordinary seaman and an apprentice. The able seaman would probably take the wheel thus leaving an immature youth as the only available deck hand. Our contention is that manning on that scale is not efficient manning.
It is not my concern to supply the President of the Board of Trade with a definition of what is an efficient sailor, but I do say that the records of these ships ought to be inquired into, because these and other records which I have in abundance raise serious misgivings as to whether the President of the Board of Trade is calling upon his Department to see that the ships which go to sea, and particularly the ships which receive subsidy, have a proper and sufficient complement of efficient sailors. One Daniel after another has come to judgment on the Government benches. It comforts me. A short time ago we asked the President of the Board of Trade, in the course of his administration of the Merchant Shipping Act, to see to it that a proper proportion of British seamen was employed on our ships. He refused, I will not say scornfully but almost scornfully. Now, his friends are exhorting him to the same good work. We are bound to look into these records and to see what are the standards now being accepted as sufficient by the Board of Trade. I have a whole crop of cases where aliens are employed, largely consisting of Chinamen—the names of the ships can be supplied if required—relating to the Port of Liverpool. There is one shipping company with 11 steamers
employing mostly Malays and Arabs. There is another important shipping line which largely employs Chinamen.

Sir B. PETO: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish us to infer that these vessels because they are registered at Liverpool go to Liverpool with crews of Chinamen? Are not they engaged on the eastern trade?

Dr. ADDISON: I do not infer anything. I said that these ships are owned by a British shipping company, registered under the British flag, and therefore my suggestion is that it is incumbent upon the Board of Trade if they want to promote the employment of British seamen as far as they can, to make it a condition for a grant of the subsidy that British seamen should be employed on these ships.

Colonel ROPNER: The right hon. Gentleman must know that liners do not receive the subsidy.

Dr. ADDISON: They receive a subsidy in aid of the voyage, to enable them, as the Act says, to compete with foreign ships.

Colonel ROPNER: They do not get the subsidy.

Dr. ADDISON: As a matter of fact, these are tramp steamers.

Colonel ROPNER: No.

Dr. ADDISON: Yes they are. If the hon. and gallant Member wants the names, I will pass them on to him with pleasure. I will give him the list and he will find that a considerable number of ships to-day—there are scores of them, including one or two well known groups of ships—employ Chinamen, Malays, Arabs and so on. The point that I want to impress upon the President of the Board of Trade is that he will instruct his officers to see to it that ships that obtain or apply for the subsidy are required to employ British seamen, or a proportion of efficient British seamen, whatever the word efficient may mean.
The loss of ships suggests the need for special alertness on the part of the Board of Trade, as to the condition of the ships themselves and the accommodation on the ships. We have some reports which have been collected with great care. Let me give a few facts. The Medical Officer of Health of the Port of Newport says:
During the past year, the notice of the port sanitary authority has been called to the accommodation"—
He mentions the names of five ships—
which in every case can only be described as deplorable. The report shows that there are numbers of British ships with sanitary defects, and that accommodation and sanitary arrangements generally compare badly with those of foreign ships.
That being the case, it seems to me that the administration of the Board of Trade needs to be tightened up. The medical officer of health for Swansea for the quarter ended December, 1931, says:
20.2 per cent. of the British ships from foreign ports were found to be defective, as against 13.2 per cent. of the foreign ships inspected.
In the same report it is stated that 422 nuisances and defects were dealt with during the period, and, in addition, 242 verminous and dirty beds were destroyed. Here we have a percentage of defects found which suggests that the administration of the Board of Trade in this respect needs to be stimulated and if necessary augmented. I notice with some surprise that the President of the Board of Trade passed over a statement to the effect that the number of inspectors had declined. That perhaps accounts to some extent for what is now being reported. We suggest, and we propose to keep it up, notwithstanding the animadversions of the gallant Admiral the Member for Burnley (Vice-Admiral Campbell) that subsidies should not be paid in respect of any ships where these discreditable conditions exist with regard to the accommodation for seamen. We hope that in the course of a few months the President of the Board of Trade will undertake to augment if need be the inspectorate of his Department or, at all events, he will so act as to secure that no ships that are defective in these matters shall receive one penny of taxpayers' money in respect of their operations.
I want to call attention to another subject which the President of the Board of Trade, with his usual skill, tried to avoid by asking me a question the other day. On the 14th March I called attention to the losses that had been incurred by the White Star Line and to a statement of the chairman at an extraordinary meeting of shareholders, in which he said that £6,000,000 had been
lost and that in addition to the £6,000,000 that had disappeared there were debts of £3,000,000 and apparently nothing was available to meet that sum. The right hon. Gentleman in his reply said:
I am not clear what suggestion for the amendment of the Companies Act the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, but if he will let me have some specific proposal I will consider it.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1935; col. 562, Vol. 299.]
In other words, he was trying to put on to a Member of the Opposition, who is not possessed of the advantages of a great Department, with its considered memoranda, etc., his own duties, just as he has been trying to get us to define an efficient sailor. I am calling attention to a matter which is in his administration and I will make a suggestion which he might consider. Here is £6,000,000 of the peoples' money which has disappeared. It has taken some time to look into the records, but perhaps I might remind the House of one or two things that have happened. This White Star Line was registered as such in January, 1927, and purchased the authorised capital of £5,000,000, through the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, of the Oceanic Steam Navigation Company. This was obtained by various allotments of shares to the extent of £7,000,000, but £5,000,000 was obtained from the public by preference shares and £4,000,000 additional was to be found by certain other parties, payable by cash by the Royal Mail and the directorate of the White Star. They only paid 2s. on account, but certain other moneys have been received since. I have here the report of Sir William McClintock on the point.
May I draw the attention of the House to another incident? This company took over the Aberdeen Commonwealth Line consisting of seven vessels of the Australian Government for £1,900,000. In due time, not having paid this amount, the Australian Commonwealth required the sale of the ships, and they were sold in 1933 for £500,000. But this company had taken them over originally for £1,900,000. Sir William McClintock pointed out:
It appears various dividends were made which were really paid from the subordinate company, which paid £458,000 in 1928, £400,000 in 1929 and another £400,000 later on.
At the same time it appears that the company had an overdraft of £725,000, and in order to enable them to pay £400,000 the other people had to back further loans. I suggest that if the public had been told, or if the Board of Trade had administered the Companies Act to secure that the public should be told the material facts of this case when that prospectus was issued, the public would not have subscribed £5,000,000. Of course, we believe, though it would not be in order to elaborate this subject that here is a case in which the complicated interlocking of companies—of which I have given only the briefest outline—is calculated completely to befog the ordinary member of the public who has no idea of what it means. In consequence of the incomplete revelation of all matters concerned, the public loses £5,000,000 or £6,000,000. This is a good case for the institution of a national investment board, which the party I represent urge should be set up. At all events, I would suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that he should administer or amend the Companies Act so that whenever these prospectuses are issued they should be accompanied by two things. Here I am trying to make a constructive suggestion in response to his request. There should be a profit and loss account issued in every case where holding companies issue these prospectuses, showing complete details of net trading profits and debentures and losses and all the rest. In addition to that, there should be a full statement of the assets and liabilities of the different concerns.
If the President of the Board of Trade cannot see his way to adopt the Socialist proposal for a proper national board to supervise these matters and safeguard the interests of the ordinary public, he ought at all events to see what he can do with the Companies Act. If he will not adopt the Opposition's proposal, though he has now adopted their proposal for an inquiry, I hope that before many months have passed he will adopt the suggestions for conditions for those in receipt of a subsidy. Perhaps, if he remains in office long enough and these tragic disasters continue with such regularity, he will come to our point of view and set up a national board to control these matters. Until that time arrives, will he administer or amend the Companies Act
in the way I have suggested so as to safeguard the public against exploitation? The right hon. Gentleman a few months ago left an impression on this House, which was not altogether happy, of extolling the god of profit almost above any other god. I think it is up to him as President of the Board of Trade to see that the worshippers at that shrine are somewhat curbed in their actions in getting the public to subscribe to their enterprises. Here is a case in which millions of public money have disappeared, simply because we have never set ourselves to undertake a national system for the control of the savings of the public. This convinces me that before very long the people of this country, instead of being intimidated by the right hon. Gentleman as to what will happen to their deposits in the savings banks, will see that the Socialist party are their chief safeguard, and that we shall stand for the safeguarding of the uninformed public against exploitation.

7.9 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): It was not only the last sentences of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that contained a touch of unreality. Nobody could possibly object to a debate of this kind being staged in the House of Commons, but it is necessary to bring the matter back to a right sense of proportion. Two subjects have been dealt with, in both of which the Board of Trade have come in for a good deal of hard words. The company law and the administration of the Mercantile Marine regulations have been dealt with. Let us endeavour in a few minutes to bring back both of these subjects to a right sense of proportion. In his concluding remarks, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the circumstances attending the flotation, capitalisation and the ultimate foundering of the White Star Line. There was some confusion in the right hon. Gentleman's mind, for he several times used the expressions "taxpayers' money" and "public money," though never a penny of the latter was involved. The White Star Line was a public limited liability company to which public subscription was invited, and all company legislators in every part of the civilised globe have been trying for a great many years to prevent a fool and his money being parted, and have so far
failed. No amending of Acts of Parliament will prevent people subscribing to issues to which others more well-informed would not subscribe. The only concern of the Board of Trade in that matter was that they administered the Companies Act.
There was a reform of the Companies Act in 1929 after a most elaborate survey under a very able chairman and after witnesses had been called from all classes of the community. In the opinion of the Department, it is too early to re-amend the Companies Act, 1929, until there is an overwhelming case from experience in the City and the general practical working of the Act that such amendments are called for. The President of the Board of Trade needs no defence at my hands, and was entirely right when, in reply to the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison), who asked about the White Star Line, he inquired what particular part of the Act was defective, and, if defective, what was the particular remedy. Although the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman will, of course, be examined in the Department and classified and noted for consideration when the amendment of the Companies Act becomes a practical suggestion, until that moment arrives nothing useful can be achieved in further discussing the capitalisation of the White Star Line, Limited. If the House will itself look into one or two of the circumstances connected with that great company, they will find that much of the money was lost by the acquisition of the Royal Mail group at prices which turned out to be wholly uneconomical in the light of shipping conditions. Other features will probably be fresh in the public mind, so that it will not be necessary for me to particularise.
It is suggested that we should do something with the Mercantile Marine Department of the Board of Trade. If the Board of Trade were to obtain its knowledge of British shipping solely or mainly from the speeches of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, what an extraordinarily distorted picture they would have of British shipping. It would appear that British ships were going to sea in an unseaworthy condition, that the accommodation for sailors was unsuitable and insanitary, and that the port officials would condemn these ships
out of hand. It is suggested that the Board of Trade inspection through its officers is loose and lax, and that vessels disappear with all hands without any inquiry being made. What a travesty of the truth. There is no commencement of foundation for any such impression to be given in the House to-day. We must, therefore, begin by bringing the whole of the Debate back to a proper sense of proportion by looking at the matter calmly and seeing what lessons we can draw from the most unfortunate happenings in the loss of vessels in the North Atlantic. I accept at once the point of view that the mere fact that the weather was exceptional is not in itself an excuse. The weather in the North Atlantic during the winter has certainly been abnormally severe. I accept also the fact that anxiety has been caused in the public mind by the loss of these vessels, in many cases unhappily attended with considerable loss of life. These vessels have all been cargo steamers. In some cases there were no survivors.
These casualties at sea, even with the exceptionally heavy weather that has been experienced, give rise to anxiety as to whether every proper precaution is being taken; whether the Board of Trade by the diligence of its surveyors is seeing that no vessel is likely to go to sea from a British port in a condition which is not satisfactory. I have little doubt that when the facts are rightly appreciated and calmly judged the misgivings, if there are any, in the public mind will be allayed. First of all, let us ascertain the facts, and, while ascertaining the facts, remove some of the more prominent misapprehensions which are known to exist. The safety of vessels at sea depends on several factors: Construction, supervision, perhaps steering gear, manning, and appliances. I refer to such matters as hatch coverings and tarpaulins. Let us have a look at some of these matters. The House realises that the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act are much more severe with regard to passenger ships than they are with regard to cargo vessels. The power of the Board of Trade is much greater in connection with passenger vessels than it is in the case of freighters. Freighters for insurance purposes require classification, and, as far as I recollect, nothing
much has been said yet about the classification societies. For insurance purposes different classification societies have their own standards. For engaging in commercial work the standard of insurance must be higher, and the standards of the classification societies are therefore higher; the better types of freighters will secure the better type of classification. The Board of Trade have no reason to believe that the safety requirements of the classification societies are in any way lax or inadequate. Let that be quite clear. Although there is a difference between the Board of Trade supervision for passenger vessels and for freighters, the matter is adjusted in practice by a freighter being compelled to conform with the requirements of the classification societies and to obey their standards.
Take supervision. There is a general power of supervision, but I wonder how many hon. Members after hearing the attacks of hon. Members opposite appreciate the power which the Board of Trade have in their inspectorate. The surveyor can go on board any vessel he likes, he can examine any ship, making any comments he likes, and require any defect to be remedied, and he has, in addition, a substantial power of sanction in order to carry out his requirements. That power is widely used by a competent and adequate staff, who constantly supervise vessels in British ports. The right hon. Member for Swindon seemed to suggest that the President of the Board of Trade has not adequately dealt with the question of a declining number of survey staff. I thought that the President of the Board of Trade made it abundantly clear to the House that although the numbers of the survey staff have been slightly reduced owing to fewer vessels coming into British ports, the number of surveys made have largely increased. If there be any doubt on that matter, let me remind the House that in the years 1930 to 1934 the number of general inspections made ran like this: in 1930, 7,900; in 1931, 9,100; in 1932, 12,600; in 1933, 14,300, and in 1934, 11,700. There is therefore no point whatever in fact or in accuracy in the suggestion that the inspections are fewer. The truth is exactly the reverse. There have been more inspections than
ever before, notwithstanding the melancholy fact that there have been fewer vessels to inspect. The whole point made by the right hon. Member for Swindon falls to the ground. Although the staff is just as competent and as efficient as ever, the number of occasions on which the inspectors have been able to go on board has unfortunately, in a restricted trade, been much greater in recent years. The House has allowed me to give figures showing a doubling almost of these occasions between 1930 and 1933.
Nor is that inspection the last word on the matter. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), who opened the Debate, referred to the Load Line Convention, and then left it. He never developed the story at all. It becomes therefore necessary to mention the matter of the load line, and the one point which arises under the Load Line Convention of 1932 is that an animal compulsory survey obtains under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1932. The whole of the case that because there have been more vessels laid up for a length of time that one has got out of the way of doing it, that there have been fewer or less qualified inspections, is shown, on examination, to be without foundation.
A reference was made to steering gear. No one has developed this matter to any extent, and I do not propose in my reply to break new ground, but a full examination of the different types of steering gear used by different freight vessels is under consideration as a matter of routine administration of mercantile marine requirements, and until evidence is produced showing conclusively that a vessel has been lost as a result of steering gear no case is made out for requiring a difference in steering gear regulations. A good deal has been said about manning, and I think that the House is fairly well in possession of the facts with regard to it. But the right hon. Member for Swindon is still under a misapprehension. He would try to make the House believe that the reason why his party voted against the Shipping Subsidy Bill is because there was not inserted in that Bill a provision with regard to the wages and conditions of the seamen.

Dr. ADDISON: Quite true.

Dr. BURGIN: We will leave the House to judge. The right hon. Gentleman
knows that the only reason for not inserting those conditions in the Bill was because it was not possible to do so as the Bill was drafted. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the committee dealing with the administration of the tramp shipping subsidy has circularised owners requiring them wherever possible to secure British seamen, and he also knows that wherever the rate of wages of the National Maritime Board is applicable the subsidy will not be paid unless those conditions are observed. That has been stated over and over again from this Box in answer to questions and in Debate, and it is now being implemented by a committee whose business it is to do this work; not a committee of the Board of Trade, but a committee of the industry itself. This committee it is which has circularised the owners of tramp ships qualified for receiving the subsidy telling them the type of crews they are to engage and the conditions they are to see observed.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Will the Board of Trade consider exercising some control over the entry of apprentices, as 2,000 officers are out of work and over 800 second mate certificates were issued last year? Will he exercise some control to obviate this congestion in the officer class?

Dr. BURGIN: Certainly, that is a matter which will be considered. In regard to manning there was a discussion across the Floor as to the meaning of "efficient deck hand"; whether two youngsters equal a fully grown man. Let us be clear what we are talking about. The manning scale must be a scale to comply with a standard. The standard was laid down between the shipowners and the shipping employés as far back as 1909. I understand that the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) merely asks for a definition. He is familiar with the practice of the industry and knows that the manning scale has worked satisfactorily since 1909. The point he asks is whether any particular person would comply with the definition, whether two youths would equal one man? The answer, of course, depends on the age, the physical fitness of the youth, his sea experience and his sea capacity. There is no doubt about the matter. Statements have been made in this House as if anyone can come straight from home, proceed on board
ship, and claim to be qualified as an efficient deck hand. That will not do.

Mr. LOGAN: Will the hon. Member go into the matter in a little more detail?

Dr. BURGIN: I cannot go into the matter to-night, but there is no difference between us as to the working of the manning scale and as to the proper method of approach in order to obtain a definition. I will not deal with other matters which have been raised in the course of the Debate except to say that the whole question of hatches is under detailed consideration. In the inquiry which is going to be made into the question of the hatches of particular vessels, to be undertaken by Lord Merrivale, the question as to whether he will be able to accept evidence from other vessels is a matter for those in charge of the inquiry.

Sir B. PETO: Will only such evidence be adduced at the inquiry?

Dr. BURGIN: The terms of reference of the inquiry are very wide, wide enough to enable every possible factor to be inquired into. As to the casualties in the North Atlantic, by all means let us have a searching investigation, let every possible fact be discussed, but, when all this is said and done, when every recommendation is made, let the House be convinced that British vessels, built in British ports in normal conditons and manned by proper crews, are as reasonably safe in the North Atlantic from bad weather as it is possible for any sea-going craft to be.

Sir R. KEYES: Can the Parliamentary Secretary answer my question with regard to the appointment of the three officers?

Dr. BURGIN: If the National Maritime Board prescribe three officers as their requirements any breach of that is a matter to be taken up.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: What about the pilots?

Dr. BURGIN: If the hon. and gallant Member can convince the shipping community that compulsory pilots are desirable—a point upon which they are in complete disagreement—then we will deal with the matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

GLASGOW CORPORATION BILL (By Order).

Order for Second Beading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

7.30 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Before I move the Amendment that stands in my name, I would like to raise a point of Order. The first Instruction to be moved on this Bill relates to the same subject-matter as one of the Instructions to be moved on another Bill. I am given to understand that so far as that other Bill is concerned, as a result of discussions that have taken place, there is not likely to be any debate upon that subject. I take it, therefore, that it would not be desirable in any way on the Amendment which I hope to move to discuss any of the aspects of the other Bill that are similar to the aspects of this Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the Amendment to the other Bill is not to be moved, there is no object in discussing that subject-matter now.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I understand that it is to be moved and to be accepted without discussion.

Mr. SPEAKER: There are so many Instructions down on the Paper, to be moved after the Second Heading of this Bill, that probably it will be convenient to the House if all the subject-matter which is raised by these Instructions were dealt with on the Second Reading. If the House gives the Bill a Second Beading, the Instructions could be put separately and voted upon without discussion. If that meets with the approval of the House, I am quite willing.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Do I understand you to suggest that instead of taking any discussion on the Instructions we have a full Second Reading Debate and merely vote upon the Instructions after the Second Reading has been agreed to?

Mr. SPEAKER: I conclude that all the questions which the Instructions raise can be raised in a Second Reading Debate. I am entirely in the hands of the House in the matter.

Mr. MACLEAN: You ask the House to have a Second Reading Debate now.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Second Reading Debate is now taking place. It is not a question of what I prefer, but what the House prefers.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, to leave out "now," and at the end of the Question to add, "upon this day six months."
It may seem a little curious that the Motion for rejection of a Bill connected with the largest city in Scotland—I must not say the first city, because that may give rise to certain troubles—should be moved by a Member from an English constituency, and that most of the names attached to the Amendment should also be those of English Members. But, after all, this is the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and I never take the slightest objection to the fact that Scottish Members participate in Debates on matters which at first sight are purely English; and I see no reason why Scottish Members should not vote, as they did vote, on the question whether Waterloo Bridge should be destroyed or not. I have never quite understood the inferiority complex of Scottish Members who think that when a Scottish Measure is before the House they must all speak, but that no one else must do so. As long as this is the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and the issue is one of general politics, and not particularly concerned with the Corporation of Glasgow, and as those who have their names associated with some of the instructions have their names associated with similar instructions in connection with the English Bill, it will be seen that we were not thinking in particular of Glasgow when we tabled our Amendment.
It happens, in the case of Glasgow, that the greater part of the Bill deals with the subject-matter of the first instruction, the proposal to set up in Glasgow a municipal savings bank. I understand that the technical process involved is to take over an existing private undertaking which has only recently been registered and has not yet started business. I do not quite understand how the thing has come about in that way, and I am not concerned. I am only concerned with the question whether it is desirable to set up a municipal savings bank in
another British municipality. There are other matters in the Bill which give rise to controversy. There is the Clause which proposes to enable the corporation to manufacture omnibus bodies, and there are two matters which are of rather narrower Scottish interest, one the question whether there should be a change in the rules under which Lord Provosts are elected. That Clause seems rather like proposing, in the middle of a game of football, that the referee should be changed. But I do not know whether that is a correct interpretation of the Clause.
There is also a proposal that certain people who are at present represented on the corporation should lose their representations, and then a proposal to deal with land in Glasgow, of which the ownership for the moment is not known, in a way different from the way in which all other land in Scotland is dealt with. That is a proposal to alter the general law in respect of a particular area, and there are a number of us who take the view that when we are dealing with matters of general legislation the proper way to deal with it is in a general public Bill affecting all the citizens alike, and not to deal with the citizens of a particular area. There are also proposals with respect to by-laws affecting street trading which I do not think call for any particular objection. Apart from that Clause, if all the instructions are carried, all that will be left of the Bill will be the title of it and the proposal that the corporation should pay the expenses. As that will happen in any event, and there is no particular merit in retaining the title of a Bill which contains nothing else, and if everyone who agrees with one of the instructions agrees with the rest, the obvious and economical thing to do is to reject the whole Bill and thus reduce the expenditure of the corporation to a minimum.
With regard to municipal banking, I know there is one corporation which has a municipal bank, and I understand it has not done too badly. That corporation started the bank at a time when money was very dear and when in some respects thrift facilities were not in quite such good condition, generally speaking as they are to-day. That particular municipality, the only one, I understand, where a municipal bank is in active
operation, though one or two other corporations have powers to introduce such banks, has achieved a certain amount of success; but the general view amongst the public is that there is no need whatever for municipal banking facilities. We have in this country two forms of thrift organisations of the savings bank character. One is the general national organisation, the Post Office Savings Bank, which performs its functions with a fair measure of efficiency and in recent years has been rather comfortably situated, because it has never varied the rate of interest which it has paid to its depositors, and during the period of dear money it was enabled to make investments on such terms that it has in fact been able to produce a surplus; and that surplus has been lifted annually by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and appears amongst the miscellaneous receipts in aid of the Budget.
On the other hand the Post Office Savings Bank never makes any provision against depreciation, because the ultimate security is the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, which means you and me and everyone else that we can tax if we are so inclined. Therefore, ordinary banking practice does not apply to the Savings Bank and the question of depreciation has not arisen. But the Post Office Savings Bank does provide convenient facilities of a certain kind—very convenient because of the enormous number of offices in the country to which people can go and obtain small sums on application without preliminary notice. But in addition to that Bank there are the trustee savings banks. If my recollection is right the trustee savings banks preceded the national system and have a wider field of activity than the Post Office. They are in a position to deal with larger sums, to advise their customers in a variety of ways quite outside the scope of the ordinary officials in a Post Office Bank, which deals with small transactions. Trustee savings banks are making great progress in this country and their number is constantly being added to. They are exceedingly well managed. Their directorial management is unpaid. I do not mean that the staff are unpaid. They are most admirable institutions for public thrift. They have a peculiar posi-
tion under the law. They are definitely recognised institutions.
Having regard to the fact that in the City of Glasgow and in most other cities of this country there are the two thrift organisations, the Post Office Savings Bank and the Trustee Savings Bank, there is no need to be met in Glasgow. The two thrift organisations are at the disposal of the citizens of Glasgow. I am now considering organisations of the banking kind, not provident societies, building societies or friendly societies. Therefore at first sight I do not know why the Corporation want these powers. Let us assume that for some reason they want to use the people's money. I suppose they are going to pay interest on it.

Mr. THORNE: Hear, hear!

Mr. WILLIAMS: I thought the party opposite did not believe in rent, interest and profit. My hon. Friend, who is now approaching the fatherhood of this House, belonged to the great Social Democratic Federation, which denounced rent, interest and profit long before any of these mushroom organisations started. Yet he now wants to found a new institution, based on the principle of rent or interest. I am frankly a little horrified that he should come here to support this capitalist principle of interest.

Mr. THORNE: Do not forget that we have gone through a transitional stage.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The interesting thing is that all the Socialists I know go through the transitional stage, and they hope it will last all their lives. This proposed municipal savings bank, I assume, is to pay interest. You cannot pay interest unless you get interest from someone else. Therefore this institution has first of all to get funds from the citizens of Glasgow, and the citizens will not deposit the funds unless attracted by the rate of interest. Not even Socialist citizens will do that. They want it to be, for preference, a higher rate than that of any of the other thrift institutions. Therefore the municipality, when they have this money, have to lend it to someone else in order to raise the wherewithal. Money is what is called cheap at the moment. It is not easy to raise a high rate of interest with complete security. That is one of the difficulties. I understand that the Glasgow Corporation will probably want to lend
the money to themselves, to another part of the Corporation, and I imagine that the other part of the Corporation will pay a sufficiently high interest that, after they have paid the management expenses, they will be able to pay a rate of interest higher than that which would be paid by the Post Office or a trustee savings bank.
That really means that the Glasgow Corporation is going to pay an abnormally high rate of interest on the money lent to it by its own savings bank. If not, it cannot make a business success of it, because obviously a new institution which has to buy its experience and is bound to have excessive overhead charges in relation to its transactions in the earlier stages, is bound to be more expensive to run than an existing institution. Therefore, inevitably, leaving on one side the question of whether this is Socialism or not, it cannot be very successful. But if the idea is that they want to get the people's money in order that it may be lent to the alleged people's representatives; in other words, if it is a device whereby the Glasgow Corporation can borrow money without the normal sanction, then we are entering into an entirely different field of argument. Is the purpose to enable the Glasgow Corporation to borrow large sums of money without going through the normal formalities of a municipal loan? I think that is perhaps the purpose behind it.
To-day, if a municipality wants to borrow money, normally it has to promote a Bill in this House. The Bill gets a Second Reading and goes upstairs, and four of our colleagues put pertinent or it may be impertinent questions to witnesses who come up from the country, a great many big-wigged gentlemen help forward the transaction, and before the sanction is given there has to be a great deal of investigation. But if you set up a municipal savings bank, and if, the Treasury regulations being rather stiff, you live in hopes of a more friendly Treasury coming along which will relax those regulations, so that ultimately you may get a rather easier system, whereby, under the guise of bank deposits, you can borrow money for all kinds of municipal trading enterprise, then, frankly, at that stage I become a little alarmed.
The Glasgow Corporation also wants to build the bodies of motor buses. I regret—I hope the right hon. and
learned Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) will not mind my saying this—that the railway companies of this country build locomotives. It may have certain advantages, but everyone knows that the British locomotive-building industry has been gravely hampered in fighting for world trade because it has never had the support of its own home market. One cannot blame the present railway directors. It was a system that they found and that they could not do away with, whatever their views may have been, but think of the difficulties that every independent locomotive manufacturer has in seeking orders all over the world, as they have done with great success, when they have not behind them any effective home market. You are proposing to do the same thing here with regard to one aspect of commercial road vehicle building.
I know the Corporation is not proposing to enter into the very risky job of building chassis, but it is proposing the not quite so difficult job of putting bodies on to other people's chassis. Everyone knows that mechanical motor vehicle construction, whether chassis manufacture or body building, depends for its efficiency upon an adequate scale of manufacture, and I suggest that the requirements of the Glasgow Corporation by themselves cannot be adequate to maintain a first-class, efficient bodybuilding department. From the purely engineering aspect of it, leaving all questions of municipal Socialism aside, it is a most reactionary proposal. I am not one of those who believe that all businesses should be amalgamated until they become one gigantic business, but there is a certain economic size of the unit of manufacture, and if you are below that size, it is obvious that you cannot manufacture economically. Therefore, it is bad economics, whether a private bus company of the same magnitude as the Glasgow undertaking is doing it or whether the Glasgow Corporation itself is doing it, because in neither case would the unit be sufficiently large. The bulk of the great bus-owning companies in this country do not attempt their own manufacture. They stick to their own business, which is bus operation, and they go to other people for bus construction, realising that the country can carry a certain number of units, but obviously a municipality would not be in a position
to enter into general competition. I know it is not proposed to do so here, but it would only have one customer, namely, itself, and it would diminish the scale of activities of the other body builders. Quite clearly, therefore, it would diminish the magnitude of the home market behind the other body builders and hamper them all in seeking for world trade. Therefore, from that point of view alone, it is a most unwise and reactionary step to propose.
As I do not like municipal trading and want it restricted within the narrowest limits. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Certainly. I do not think an unpaid body of directors, far too numerous—I have been a town councillor myself—is nearly as efficient at running a commercial enterprise as ordinary paid directors. Leaving out of account all the dangers of a municipal employé vote at election times, I say that as an administrative body a town council, excellent as it is for its normal functions, is not a very useful institution when it comes to running a business. The dice are loaded against it from the word "Go." Anyone who has served on a trading committee of a municipality knows that its efficiency right from the beginning is far lower than that of an ordinary commercial undertaking.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: The White Star line.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If a commercial enterprise fails, you can eliminate the incompetent directors, but when you nationalise a thing the real directorate remains, however incompetent it may be. It goes on, the incompetence is permanent, and you have not failure to enable you to eliminate incompetence. That is the real difference, and therefore I am opposed to this proposal. I see nothing in municipal trading to attract me, and I oppose it on every conceivable occasion.
There are other provisions in the Bill which affect Scottish interests in a peculiar and narrow way, but on broad grounds it seems to me undesirable that Glasgow should elect its lord provost in a different way from that in which the other three great cities of Scotland elect their lord provosts, or the smaller towns their provosts. They have a certain system in Scotland, and it seems to me
wrong that it should be altered in one particular town. Whether the purpose is to terminate the tenure of office of the present Lord Provost before it would naturally run out, I do not know.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But you ought to, know. You should not get up and say that. The present Lord Provost has been in office for two and a half years. His term finishes next year, and this Bill does not operate until he has finished his normal time.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am very glad to hear that.

Mr. BUCHANAN: You should not make such suggestions.

Mr. WILLIAMS: What I said was that it seems strange that one great corporation should want to alter the rules of the game.

Mr. BUCHANAN: This proposal was put before the Corporation of Glasgow years ago by a well-known Conservative in the city, who thought it would be more businesslike to have a change each year. It is a thing that was proposed in its origin by Conservatives and not always by the political party that now happens to be the predominant party in Glasgow.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I was not concerned with the author of the proposal. In England we elect once a year, but in Scotland these people run for three years. If the Scots want to modernise themselves and to put themselves on an English basis, let them do it in a general Bill. I do not think it is satisfactory that the general principles of municipal government should vary from one Scottish town to another. There are proposals also to alter the character of the corporation, but on them I have no comment to make. I know nothing about that system, though I have received a number of telegrams from people who strongly hope the change may not take place. The two things of general politics that I am concerned with are the proposal for a municipal savings bank, which I think would be a great mistake, and the proposal to build motor bus bodies, which also I think would be a great mistake.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. JOHN LOCKWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
Under a rather thin camouflage this is really what might be called a form of
Socialism. If you analyse the Bill, some of the provisions might be termed peculiar to Scotland, but there are other provisions which unquestionably are not exclusive to Scotland, but are matters of very great public importance. One of the reasons why some of us object to the Bill is that it seeks to put into a public Act questions of policy which ought to be seriously discussed and only included in public Acts after such discussion and consideration. As I understand it, and in order to make our opposition to the Bill plain, this Bill falls under six headings. There is, first of all, the creation of a municipal bank; then there is the shortening of office of the Lord Provost; then there is the proposal that the Dean of Guild and Deacon Convenor should cease to be members of the Corporation; then there is power to manufacture bus bodies; then power to take possession of and sell abandoned properties: and finally by-laws as to street trading. I do not propose to deal with all those matters, but I would like to deal with three of them.
I do not think, after hearing what has been said by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) in moving the rejection of the Bill, that there is much left to be said so far as a municipal bank is concerned, but, as I understand it, the onus of proof of the necessity for this Bill is upon those who seek these powers, and it would be very interesting to know on what ground they base the apparent necessity for taking over the existing bank and having a municipal bank. Hon. Members may not know that the Glasgow savings bank has been in existence for some years, is a perfectly flourishing concern, properly carried on, that there are deposits of no less than £31,000,000, and that it has in addition 20 branches. In these circumstances it would be very interesting to find out on what basis the argument is advanced that it is necessary to take over this bank and make it into a municipal bank.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. It is evident that the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Lockwood) has not read the Bill. We are not proposing to take over the existing savings bank with 20 branches. If the hon. Member had studied the Bill itself, it might
have induced him to withdraw his name from among those who object to it.

Mr. LOCKWOOD: The hon. Member does me a great injustice if he thinks I have not read the Bill. I have read it several times.

Mr. MACLEAN: Then I will amend my suggestion and say that he has not understood it.

Mr. LOCKWOOD: By the time I have finished my speech, the hon. Member may realise that I know more about the Bill than he thinks I do. At any rate, my point is that it would be very interesting to know what is suggested as the need for taking over a bank and having a municipal bank, except that it is obvious that it is this Socialist idea that all you have to do is to get hold of some public undertaking and run it under a Socialist regime, and then the thing immediately starts paying and it is entirely for the good of everyone concerned—a fallacy which has long since been exploded. I would like to ask the promoters of the Bill if they consider they are likely to obtain money from this municipal bank at a cheaper rate than it can be got now. Money is very cheap, and they will obtain it just as cheaply from the joint stock banks as from any municipal banking concern. The question as to whether or not there might be a heavy loss on the municipal bank has probably entered the minds of the promoters, but I do not suppose it bears very heavily upon them. It is interesting to note that the rates in Glasgow at present are 13s. 10d. in the pound. I suggest that the chances are that if this bank became a municipal bank the rates would be considerably higher.

Mr. JOHN WILMOT: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman has studied the record of the municipal bank in Birmingham?

An HON. MEMBER: What about the rates in Hackney?

Mr. LOCKWOOD: I can only say this about the rates in Hackney, that since we have had a Socialist administration they have gone up considerably—about 1s. 10d. in the pound—and I am certain they will go up more. I do not understand why Members of the Socialist party should seek to apologise for it. I understood it was part of their policy that rates should go up. I come to a
very important point, the Dean of Guild and the Deacon Convener, who are to cease to be members of the Corporation. It may be interesting for the people who do not know exactly what the Dean of Guild or the Deacon Convener is for me shortly to explain. Perhaps after I have explained it one hon. Member will know that I have read the Bill and studied it. The Dean of Guild is the head of Merchants House, which is a body consisting of the principal members of numerous branches of commerce, trade and manufacture—1,100 of them—incorporated in 1605. Ever since then the Dean of Guild has been an ex-officio member of the Corporation. His position has been considered in various Acts. It has been considered in four recent Acts, and it has been thought right by various Governments that the position should not be altered. The onus for altering it is upon those who seek to make the change.

Mr. MACLEAN: What about the Deacon Convener?

Mr. LOCKWOOD: I was not going to speak about the Deacon Convener at the moment. The other point is the power sought to manufacture bus bodies. It is no part of the duty of a corporation to manufacture bus bodies. So far as Socialist Governments are concerned, they would like to have that power, and a good many others, but I suggest that, as such, it is no part of the duty of a corporation to manufacture bus bodies.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that at the moment the Glasgow Corporation manufacture their own trams?

Mr. LOCKWOOD: I do not think that in the slightest destroys what I am saying, because the mere fact that they make them does not mean that they make them successfully or that the principle is right. I suggest that the possibilities are that the whole thing will result in a very heavy loss. I do not know why hon. Members opposite bother about that. They do not care whether it is a loss or not. It makes no difference. What they seek to do is merely to say, "The thing doesn't pay. That is all right, put up the rates"—and the rates will go up. I would also like to ask those who seek these powers whether or, not they
have any difficulty at present in obtaining what they want. If there were any difficulty in obtaining bus bodies, one could very well understand that it might be necessary to manufacture them. I suggest that there is no difficulty whatever. Several attempts have been made already to obtain these powers and this is the last, and I trust the most hopeless, of the efforts of the Glasgow Corporation to make their own bus bodies. In ordinary cases, when municipal concerns run their own tramways or buses, they have no power to manufacture them. Glasgow endeavoured to obtain these powers. In 1922 when the powers were given the words were left in, that is to say, power was given to them to manufacture buses, but there was so much opposition to it that eventually the words were taken out. In 1924 a Provisional Order was obtained by the corporation, but again it had to be abandoned owing to opposition. In 1927 a Provisional Order was made and an inquiry took place. The result, again owing to opposition, was that the Order was withdrawn. Finally, as late as 1929 powers were again sought in a private Bill, but the Clause which would give them the powers they wanted was rejected by a Select Committee of the House of Lords. I suggest, therefore, that this is their last chance of getting these powers, which so far have been examined and rejected. Under the cloak of being a private Bill, this is merely Socialism, which the hon. Members opposite seek, and which I hope they will never get. I hope that when the object of the Bill is discovered it will be rejected by a tremendous majority.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: The House has listened to two speeches from two opponents of the Bill. I take no exception to the position from the point of view that they have expressed, but I take exception to the direction from which it has come, in view of the fact that the statements made by the last speaker undoubtedly show that he knew very little about Glasgow and even less about the Bill. While he may be able to learn from someone who has lobbied him what the purpose of the Dean of Guild may or may not be, he certainly has not gone further into the matter to find out exactly the intentions of the Glasgow
Corporation. We can all appreciate the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) speaking against the Bill, more particularly as it is being defended on this side of the House. We know exactly the line of attack he is going to launch on the Bill. He is undoubtedly the high priest of individualism in this House, and we, therefore, do not object or take any exception to the statements which he makes in regard to this Bill. I may point out to the House, and, particularly to Scottish Members, that it seems rather peculiar that until last night practically all the names that were down with objections to the Bill were those of Members representing English constituencies, and only one name attached to one of these Amendments or Instructions was that of a Member representing a Scottish constituency. He represents a constituency in the north of Scotland, very far removed from Glasgow. I am not concerned very much about it except that the Scottish Members are often told that they try to run this House. Evidently the English Members are going to take a leaf out of our book and are going to try to run Scotland. They will find that they have bitten more than they can swallow if they try to run Scotland.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: We have a Scottish Prime Minister.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: You are welcome to him.

Mr. MACLEAN: You carry the burden, and we do not object. The hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Lockwood) and also the hon. Member for South Croydon object to the Glasgow Corporation building omnibus bodies, and the last speaker, when an interjection was made that they already made their own trams, tried to make the House shiver with the idea that the trams did not pay and that they really cost more to produce in the works at Glasgow than if they were produced by private manufacture. I want to assure the hon. Member that the Glasgow Corporation, I am informed, save money on the building of their trams. For a period of between 30 and 40 years they have built their own trams, and, if the hon. Member ever comes to Glasgow, I am certain that the transport officials will be delighted to show him over their
works, and he will see there a works department for building every part of tram-cars, electrical fittings as well, that will astonish him and make him think that he has stepped into some great manufacturing concern. It is carried on, not at a loss, as he has endeavoured to make out, not at a profit, but making a substantial saving to the corporation and citizens of Glasgow by the saving effected in the price that would otherwise have to be paid to a private manufacturer. That is my reply to the hon. Member on the question of the building of the trams.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask the hon. Member who does the cost accountancy and whether all the overhead expenses are included?

Mr. MACLEAN: The chartered accountants of Glasgow have access to the books of the Corporation and would very soon make an outcry in the local Press and send hitters to their Tory representatives in Parliament, even to the hon. Member for South Croydon, if they thought there was anything amiss in the book-keeping of the transport department of the Corporation. To suggest, as the hon. Member appears to do, that there is some faking of the books—

Mr. WILLIAMS: No. Everyone knows that a similar suggestion has been made in respect of the cost of the construction of ships in the Royal Dockyards. From the very circumstances of the ease it is obvious that a substantial proportion of the overhead expenses are never charged fully on the trading departments. We have only to consider the great mass of centralised town-hall expenditure, which is never properly spread over the municipal undertakings, in order to realise the significance of my comment.

Mr. MACLEAN: In order to show the hon. Member how much the transport department does for the city of Glasgow and how much it does to keep down expenses in other directions, I need only mention that they maintain the streets for 18 inches on each side of the tramlines. In addition, a year or two ago a new bridge was built over the river Clyde in order to divert traffic from the other bridges and relieve congestion. The cost of that bridge was borne almost entirely
by funds built up by the tramways department. They have saved the ratepayers of Glasgow considerable sums as a result of the amounts which they have been able to spend on the maintenance of roadways, the building of bridges and other matters of material benefit to the citizens. The hon. Member for Central Hackney attempted to show that the rates in Glasgow were being increased. It may come as a shock to him to learn that in spite of the fact that we have a Labour majority in the Corporation the rates were not increased last year and that there will probably be no increase this year.

Mr. LOCKWOOD: They are high.

Mr. MACLEAN: Yes, but let me remind him that the last increase was imposed by his own class—by the Tories. The high rate to-day is due in the main to unemployment. Glasgow like other industrial areas has been hard-hit and a large number of its citizens having run through their unemployment benefit are now on the rates drawing poor law relief. The rates in this respect have in recent years increased from £350,000 to almost £1,360,000, an increase of between £900,000 and £1,000,000, due to the unemployment that exists in the country. But surely the hon. Member is not going to accuse a Labour majority, which has only been there as a majority for less than a year, of being responsible for that additional £900,000? Yet he endeavoured to arouse the prejudice of Members of this House by his statement on the rates of the city.
I would point out that Glasgow received powers from this House previously for the building of bus bodies, and that it was the other House which threw out those powers. The House of Commons has already given such powers not only to Glasgow but to other cities. The hon. Member for South Croydon and his colleagues omitted to inform the House that other corporations in Britain had received those powers. Further, let me put this point to the hon. Members opposite. I am informed that if anything happens to one of the existing bus bodies the Corporation of Glasgow can build a new body for that bus and that special powers are not required for that purpose because that work comes within the category of repairs. It is possible for them,
without any powers of this kind, to build an entirely new body and place it upon the old chassis. Hon. Members opposite are trying to get away with the illogical proposition that while the corporation is now able to manufacture a new bus body and place it on an old chassis, it should not be allowed to build a new bus body and place it on a new chassis bought from a private manufacturer. That shows how ridiculous and absurd is the attitude of the two hon. Gentlemen opposite and those who are supporting them in these Amendments and Instructions.
With regard to the statement that we are seeking to do away with the representation of certain interests on the corporation. I must inform the House that at present in Glasgow two individuals sit as town councillors who do not require to be elected. Every other member of the corporation, including the Lord Provost himself, has to go before the electors and secure election, but these two individuals are not under that necessity. I say no word against those individuals and I say nothing against the two bodies through which they are co-opted on the council. Many estimable gentlemen have occupied those positions in the past. One of them sits in this House as Member for Cathcart (Mr. Train). He acted in the capacity of deacon convenor in the Glasgow Corporation for two years, and not a word do any of us say against him. What we strongly object to, however, is the fact that every time these gentlemen are present at the corporation's meetings two votes are given against Labour by persons who have not had to stand before the electors and secure their return by the votes of the electors.

Mr. TRAIN: Is it not the case that neither of these two representatives has ever been connected with any party in the Corporation?

Mr. MACLEAN: I would turn the hon. Member's question round the other way and ask whether these gentlemen have ever been known, to vote for a Labour proposal in the Corporation?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Never.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: That shows that they have some common sense.

Mr. MACLEAN: The silence of the ex-deacon convener will, I think, indicate to the House the way in which they have always voted.

Mr. TRAIN: I do not know how they have voted on every occasion but I know they are not connected with any party.

Mr. McGOVERN: But they do not betray their class.

Mr. MACLEAN: At least the hon. Member for Cathcart knows how he himself voted and he has not given us his testimony on that matter. However, the city of Glasgow asks that these two representatives should no longer have the right to sit as town councillors without election. There is no reason why bodies composed of merchants of the city, formed and subscribed to for the purpose of looking after members and their relatives who fall on evil days, of helping them when they are sick and of educating their children, should be entitled to representation on the Corporation. We welcome and appreciate all the good that they do. No one would detract from their good work or utter a harsh word against the composition of those bodies having regard to the functions which they perform, but that is no justification for asking the City of Glasgow to provide representation upon its council for them. That is one of the reasons why, because of the non-representative character of these two gentlemen who sit upon the town council as town councillors, we put in this Bill the request that this particular position should be no longer filled by these individuals. I come now to the question of the Lord Provost. It is amusing to hear two Members who represent English constituencies asking the House to reject the proposal to introduce into the city of Glasgow a custom, rule or law that exists in every town in England. Lord mayors and mayors are elected in England for one year, and yet hon. Members want to deny Glasgow the right of electing the Lord Provost for one year.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I thought that Scotland gave England the lead and did not accept the lead from England.

Mr. MACLEAN: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member would refuse to take anything that was good, no matter
from what source it came. I am prepared to take anything good, even if it comes from the Devil. If in the greater part of the kingdom the lord mayors and mayors are elected for only one year and given the right to reappointment, I do not see why it should be denied to Glasgow and why it should be necessary to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to bring in a Bill for the whole of Scotland to enforce by legal enactment something which some of the burghs in Scotland might not wish to have. If Glasgow wishes it, I do not see why England should object to allow Glasgow the right to appoint the civic head for a year instead of appointing him for a period of three years. If at the end of one year he has justified his election and made himself happy with those who sit under him, and if they care for him and appreciate his conduct in the chair, it will be possible to re-elect him for three years. The appointment of the Lord Mayor for only one year would prevent that which presently happens, particularly in Glasgow. Having sat for three years, the Lord Provost cannot sit again in the town council, and by a gentleman's agreement he must retire and go entirely out of public life, unless he happens to be elected for Parliament or some other institution. This proposal would preserve for the city of Glasgow some individuals who have done valuable service to the community and would enable them to remain in the council to give the benefit of their wisdom and experience.
The question of the bank seems to be a sore point to hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Lockwood) seemed to think I was hard upon him for suggesting that he had not read the Bill. I cannot do other than suggest it when he tries to make the House believe that we are endeavouring to take over a long-established trustee savings bank in the city. This bank is a flourishing concern and has been running for many years; it has branches in certain areas outside Glasgow and performs a good piece of work. The hon. Member said we would have to compete with the Post Office savings bank and the Glasgow savings bank and that we would not succeed. Both hon. Members who proposed the rejection of the Bill seem to lose sight of the fact that there are already two separate savings banks which are competing with each other—
the Glasgow trustee savings bank and the Post Office savings bank. We have a Post Office savings bank in Glasgow and the trustee savings bank, and both are offering almost identical terms to those who lodge their money with them, and yet these two banks are flourishing. Why should not the corporation bank flourish? Is there any reason why it should not?

Mr. LOCKWOOD: Does the hon. Member realise that the type of person who puts money into the Post Office is different from the type of person who puts money into a trustee savings bank?

Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member is again showing that he does not understand what class of people go to these two banks in Glasgow. If he did, he would not make such rash statements. With regard to the bank which is mentioned in the Bill, if you had made inquiries from the individuals who are working with you, they would be able to tell you that the bank mentioned in the Clause is a banking company set up within the corporation itself, and the proposal is to take it over and run it in the same manner as the bank at Kirkintilloch is run. It is practically a municipal savings bank there, and the proposal in the Bill is to take over the functions and the deeds of the company as it was instituted within the corporation itself. No one can be a director of it unless he is a member of the council and when he ceases to be a member of the council he automatically ceases to be a director of the bank. That is the bank which it is proposed to take over, and not the long-established Glasgow Savings Bank of which many people in Glasgow are proud and to which they go to lodge whatever money they can lodge in its security.
Glasgow is asking the House to allow the Bill to get its Second Reading so that it can go before a Select Committee to be examined. Objections can be lodged there. The hon. Member for South Croydon suggested that he was going to save money for Glasgow by having the Bill defeated. It is for the House itself to settle either to defeat the Bill or to give Glasgow Town Council the right to have its proposals heard and examined in the manner established by Private Bill procedure. I do not say this as a threat, but if we are to have English Members, because they do not see eye to eye with
the proposals in this Bill, preventing the Bill going through the usual procedure, other methods will have to be adopted. I have no objections to raise against their methods at the moment. They are exercising their rights as Members of the House to object to any Bill which comes from any part of the country. Let me assure hon. Gentlemen, however, that it can cut both ways. We can object to every English Private Bill which comes to this House, irrespective of how good or bad it may be, until we clutter up the Order Paper with Private Bills. Let hon. Members beware how far they carry their desire to oppose Private Bills because of principles to which they object personally, disregarding the wishes of many thousands of citizens in towns up and down the country. Why should their desires be thwarted because the hon. Member for South Croydon and the hon. Member for Central Hackney come to the House to give rein to their individual ideas and prejudices?

8.36 p.m.

Sir WALDRON SMITHERS: The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), if I heard him aright, referred to a banking company of which the directors must be town councillors, and directly they cease to be councillors they cease to be directors of the bank. In that observation the hon. Member has condemned municipal banking right away. Why should a man be a director of a municipal bank merely because he is a member of the town council—the only qualification to become a director is that he is a member of the town council? The hon. Member also said that we were not following the ordinary procedure in connection with private business in objecting to a Second Beading being given to this Bill. In my opinion this is not an ordinary municipal private Bill. It is one which raises a great and vital principle. I see many Members from Glasgow present, and I hope to prove to them that not only is municipal banking wrong in principle but, I say respectfully, that if they carry the proposal to institute a municipal bank in Glasgow they will be doing a very bad bit of business not only for themselves but for the municipality of Glasgow and for the depositors.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: What about Birmingham?

Sir W. SMITHERS: I will deal with Birmingham in a minute. I venture as an English Member to support the rejection of this Bill on a matter of grave principle, and I want to speak against the institution of a municipal bank in Glasgow in particular and against municipal banks in general. I am not talking politically to-night; I am talking from the hard business point of view. A very great deal depends on whether a municipal bank starts operations in a period of cheap money or of dear money. Suppose it starts in a period of dear money, as was the case with the Birmingham Bank, a period when, we will say, the price for long-term borrowing is 5 per cent. If the municipality gives three per cent. to its depositors and adds one per cent. for expenses that means that it can lend money to the corporation at 4 per cent. at a time when the current rate of interest is 5 per cent. But in a time like this, when money is cheap, how can a municipal bank hope to compete even with the Post Office? If a municipal bank were started in Glasgow to-day, to be able to attract any money from depositors it would have to pay them 3 per cent. If we add 1 per cent. for expenses that makes 4 per cent., and it will only be able to lend the money which it has got from its depositors to the Glasgow Corporation at about 4 per cent. I have here a list of securities which were offering on the London Stock Exchange yesterday. It covers all the principal cities of Great Britain—Aberdeen, Birmingham, Blackburn, Blackpool, Huddersfield, Hull, Lanark, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Middlesbrough, Nottingham, Salford, Sheffield, Stockton-on-Tees, Stoke-on-Trent and Swansea. That list covers practically the whole country, north, south, east and west. The loans run to 1953, to 1985, to 1930—to varying dates; and when I look at the yield with redemption, in only two cases is the yield over 3 per cent. In all other cases it ranges from £2 14s. 9d. to £2 19s. 9d. per cent. Therefore, the borrowing basis of municipalities to-day is 3 per cent., or under; and yet the proposal before us to-night is that the municipality of Glasgow shall set up a bank which, if it is to get any money at all, must offer its depositors 3 per cent., will have to add 1 per cent. to cover working expenses, and can only lend its money to the municipality at 4 per cent.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Nonsense.

Sir W. SMITHERS: That is the only way they can make the bank pay, and what is the good of setting up a bank if it does not pay its way? A simple calculation works out in this way. Supposing the bank in Glasgow received from its depositors the sum of £5,000,000. If the bank is to be a business bank it would have to charge 4 per cent. for that money if it were loaned to the Glasgow Corporation; but the Corporation could borrow elsewhere at under 3 per cent., and therefore, if the money were borrowed from the municipal bank, that would mean an annual loss of £50,000 a year to the ratepayers of Glasgow.
I want to say a word, also, as regards the depositors, because the principal people to suffer if a bank goes wrong are the depositors. What are the assets of a municipality? They are tramways, waterworks, public buildings, sewers, electricity, gasworks, and the like. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the rates!"] Assets such as those are difficult of realisation, and a position might arise which would constitute a grave risk from the point of view of the depositors. If there were a party in power in any municipality, whether Glasgow or not, which was revolutionary and undertook unsound finance, the depositors in the municipal banks would get alarmed and clamour for their deposits, and owing to the unrealisable nature of those assets from what source could the municipal bank meet such an emergency?
If the House will allow me I would read six points that were made by a professional body which reported to the Institute of Municipal Treasurers. The report was presented by the town clerk of Birmingham, to which city reference has already been made. The points are summarised, and I agree with them. I ask the House to note very carefully the recommendations of that body, which were as follow:

"(a) The establishment of a municipal savings bank should not be regarded as having for its primary object the raising of money for municipal capital expenditure, but rather the provision of facilities for the exercise of thrift under the best and most remunerative conditions, with the same facilities to the local authority for making such use of a part of the accumulated funds as those suggested herein for trustee savings banks;
1843
(b) The municipal savings bank should be regarded as entitled to obtain within the range of trustee securities the best possible return on its investments;
(c) That upon any funds lent to the corporation the bank, as the lender, should receive not less than the rate of interest being paid by the corporation to private lenders;
(d) That there should be no indirect subsidy given to the bank in the form of free accommodation or service and that all beneficial users of buildings, staff, etc., be costed for inclusion in the working expenses of the bank;
(e) That while the rate of interest allowed to the depositor need not be restricted to the same rate of interest as that payable on the Post Office or other savings banks, it should nevertheless be such as will leave a sufficient margin when deducted from the rate of interest earned by the deposited funds of the bank, to pay the working expenses when the bank has become properly established;
(f) That notwithstanding the fact that the savings bank will have behind it the guarantee of the municipality, it will be necessary in investing the funds of the bank to follow the usual practice of other banks and exercise such care and caution in arranging investments as will ensure the bank carrying liquid assets sufficient to meet any emergency such as au unexpected run on the bank."

One of the most important things in taking people's money, especially the money of the small investors, is the psychology of the small investor, who is most sensitive to anything which may appear to affect the security of his capital. The policy which has been found to be successful in conducting trustee savings banks should be followed by the municipal banks, and no risks should be taken, because, if anything went wrong with the municipal savings bank, all the agencies which had been set up catering for thrifty people would be injured. Finally, the report says:
A municipal savings bank should, after a short period for getting into working order, be self-supporting. Any profit should be devoted in the first place to strengthening the financial position of the bank, and when that position is deemed to be sufficiently secure, it should be devoted either to the development of the business or to the improvement of the interest allowed to investors. It should not be devoted to relief of rates.
That is the opinion of a very experienced and responsible committee.
When the Socialist Government were in office, powers were taken to establish municipal savings banks in other cities
and were obtained by Cardiff and Birkenhead. The Treasury then laid down certain regulations for the establishment of banks in those cities. One of the regulations is that interest to the depositors should be 2½ per cent. per annum on ordinary deposits and 3½ per cent. on fixed deposits. Since the Treasury laid down those regulations, an enormous change has taken place in the money situation of this country. The brilliant conversion of the £2,000,000,000 5 per cent. War Loan has been made. I do not presume to know what the Treasury would do, but I cannot believe that, in the altered conditions, they would still lay down those regulations.
It is interesting to note that the regulations laid down by the Treasury then are of such a nature that it was not thought desirable to proceed, and the powers were reversed. In 1932 the Glasgow Corporation—[Interruption.] I will come back to the question of Birmingham. The whole point about Birmingham is that the Birmingham Savings Bank was started at a time of dear money. There were no other thrift banks in the city at the time. I do not know whether I ought to say this, but I mean it: Birmingham is different from most other cities. When you have the Chamberlain family behind a municipal bank it makes all the difference. In 1932 the Glasgow Corporation instructed the town clerk and the city chamberlain to inquire into the question of municipal banks, and those officials visited Birmingham. I have read the account of the discussions which the Glasgow representatives had with the Birmingham representatives. The Glasgow Council turned down any idea of establishing a municipal bank. I would like to know what has made them change their minds.

Mr. McGOVERN: Because the people have changed the composition of the council.

Sir W. SMITHERS: I am coming to the, question of giving money by means other than by Parliamentary sanction. If the proposed municipal bank in Glasgow offered a higher rate than 2½ per cent., the cost of the money collected, plus the expenses of management and the higher rate at which it would borrow in the open market, either by way of mortgage loan or by the issue of stock, would mean that the ratepayers would have to bear the extra cost.
Another question will arise if this bank is formed and collects money. If the Bill goes through and the municipal bank is opened in Glasgow, and £5,000,000, we will say, is received as deposit, some of the money at least—I am not sure of the exact percentage—has to be invested in trustee or Government securities. As I have already said, we are passing through a period of cheap money and very high prices for Government securities. In the institution of a bank of this kind, the directors or trustees would be compelled to take a long-term view. The money would be there for a very long time. They would be compelled to buy trustee or Government securities at the highest prices that have obtained for many years. The probability is that when trade revives and things get better, the tendency will be for gilt-edged securities to depreciate in price. At the very commencement of their transactions, therefore, the municipality would be faced with the probability of the depreciation of the securities in which they had invested at the time of very cheap money. It is very important indeed that a municipal bank, even more than any other bank, should retain the fullest confidence of its depositors. A bank must keep a liquid cash reserve and a due proportion of reliable British Government securities. If the municipality of Glasgow agreed to pay a rate of interest that would attract deposits from the public, it would certainly be at the expense of the ratepayers.
I come now to one of the most important points of all. A municipal bank is in the ordinary way subject to Government control. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) touched upon this point, but I want to add a further word in regard to it. It would be a bad thing if a municipality, through a municipal bank, were able to lessen Parliamentary authority over municipal finance, but Clause 3 of the Bill says definitely that:
Subject to any regulations prescribed under this Section, the Corporation may use the money deposited at the bank for any purpose for which they may incur expenditure.
Local authorities—county councils, borough councils and city councils—all over the country, in the 12 years during which I have had the honour to be in this House, have had increasing powers and increasing responsibilities put upon them. They have been given work to do in connection
with education, the Poor Law, roads, and so forth, all over the country in increasing quantity, and the one control that the House of Commons has over the municipalities is by retaining the power to order their financial requirements. I am not certain of the exact procedure, but I think that, when a municipality or local authority wants to raise money, it has to come to the Ministry of Health and get its consent. This method which it is now proposed to adopt is, however—I say it in no unkind sense—a backdoor method of raising money for municipalities and avoiding Parliamentary sanction, and for that reason, if for no other, I strongly oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.
It is not the business of a municipality to go into banking. Some hon. Members may think that receiving people's money and putting it in a safe deposit somewhere is a very simple thing to do, but I can assure them that it is not. Once you take control of people's money, you accept a very heavy responsibility. During and since the War the banking system of this country has won the admiration of the world. In America, one has seen banks close down, but during all the crises of the War, the General Strike, and even the advent of a Labour Government, there has never been one question as to the solidity, efficiency and honourable conduct of our banks. Why? Because they are entirely free from political influences. The great objection that I have to the setting up of a municipal bank is that it cannot avoid coming under the political influence of the party in power, no matter which party it may be.
Reference has been made to the trustee savings bank, and I want to point out the position in Glasgow. I have here the Trustee Savings Banks Year Book, from which I see that there are 199 trustee savings banks in this country, of which the biggest is in Glasgow, with deposits of about £34,000,000. It has 30 branch offices in Glasgow. The point about the trustee savings bank is that, while it may lend the money which belongs to its depositors in all sorts of ways, that money is lent with no political bias at all. The trustee savings banks are administered by men who are not paid for their services, and I expect few
Members of the House know that the trustee savings banks' accounts are inspected year by year by the Trustee Savings Banks Committee, which is a statutory committee and which submits an annual report to Parliament. If a municipal savings bank were to fail, it would be a serious blow to municipal credit and stability, and the risk is one which we should not take. The failure of a municipal bank is a real, and not an imaginary, danger. The Macmillan and other reports have all urged that banking should be kept free from political influence. The fact is that we simply cannot afford to risk the setting up of municipal banks throughout the country.
As my last point, I want to ask the promoters of the Bill, which includes the setting up of a municipal bank, whether it is fair for them to compete with existing banks, which are compelled to keep adequate cash reserves and capital resources, and have expenses because of that fact? If this Bill goes through, will the municipal bank have to publish an annual audited account, and will there be an annual meeting at which any depositor or shareholder can question and criticise the directors? Even if there were, I doubt whether the smaller depositors in Glasgow, though I do not want to say anything at all derogatory to them, would have the necessary education and financial ability to get up and ask intelligent questions at the meeting. I beg the House to realise that this Bill is a matter of principle, and not a matter affecting Glasgow alone. If municipal banks were established throughout the land—and this is a beginning—it would, in my humble opinion, create a national menace to the credit structure of this country. For all these reasons, I ask the House to reject the Second Reading of the Bill.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: As a Member for the City of Glasgow, I rise to lend my support to the Bill, and I propose to try to answer the case stated against the Bill, which is much more formidable because of its numbers and weight than is usually the case with a Corporation measure. Generally speaking, when we discuss these measures, the opposition is not so formidable in numbers as we have seen it to be to-day. I propose to try
to meet in a reasoned way the opposition which we are now facing. Before I proceed, I would say, with all due humility to the Corporation, and particularly because I do not belong to the same complexion as the majority of the Council, that when they come here they have a right to ask for fairness in debate and fairness in criticism, but they must also extend the same fairness to others, even to those who are in a minority of one or two. I wish to say that the Corporation, and particularly some of those who are sponsoring the Bill, were most unfair at, the week-end. They published a paragraph somewhat to this effect, that the Corporation would probably be backed by the two Labour Members for the City, and the Independent Labour Party group were not even mentioned as probably backing them, although all our names are down as official backers of the Bill. We are entitled to be treated fairly. There was no problematic business about it, and we intended to back it. At Scottish party conferences up to now, it has been stated that our names were down in support of the Bill.
I wish to say a few words in support of the Bill in general and to examine its general principles. What are the provisions for which we are asking? They are a municipal savings bank, to build our own bus bodies, to take certain control over disused properties, to abolish the office of Dean of Guild and Deacon Convener, and to take certain powers about street trading. A great deal of the Opposition has been cencentrated upon the question of a municipal bank. Even if I were a Conservative and that was all I had against the Bill, I should vote for the Second Reading and take the ordinary constitutional way of moving an Instruction that that part of the Bill should be left out. It is not a sufficient reason, because hon. Members disagree with the municipal bank, for the rejection of the whole of the Bill. It is for the opposition to the Bill, if that is all that they have against it, to support the Second Reading and to move an Instruction to leave out that part of it dealing with the municipal bank. That is the constitutional way in which to proceed when dealing with a great town council like that of Glasgow.
I will deal with the objections raised to the municipal bank. I admit—and there is no wisdom or sense in denying
it—that the present is a much more difficult time for the town council to embark upon a municipal bank than was the case when Birmingham did so. None of us would deny that money has become much cheaper since that time. I will submit two or three reasons why the corporation have undertaken the idea of the establishment of a municipal bank, which is not a new idea in the city of Glasgow. The demand has existed over a period of years. Let us in fairness examine the case. There is a trustee savings bank in the city which has made millions of pounds of profit. During that time Glasgow has been a heavily rated city under Tory rule as well as under Labour rule, because high rates are not the result of the present administration but of administrations that have gone before.
It has been found—a perfectly natural thing—that millions of pounds of profit have been made out of the money of the people of Glasgow. Glasgow is a thrifty city, whether you like it or not. The ability to save is not confined to Conservatives, but extends over the general population. Millions of pounds of profit were made out of the people of Glasgow at a time when rates were heavy and interest poor. These profits, made at a comparatively low rate of interest, were used for purposes which had no direct connection with the city. Consequently, the town council said: "Here is Glasgow with resources to supply all the money. Its citizens can subscribe it, and why should money be so subscribed for purposes outwith the city when the city is gasping for certain sums of money which can be profitably used and so decrease the ordinary rating of the city." That was the position, and so the demand for a municipal bank came along.
Hon. Members opposite ought to know a little of the history of Glasgow's borrowing powers, and I propose to enlighten them. The borrowing powers of Glasgow are not in all respects the same as those of other cities. Glasgow has already the limited powers of a bank. Let me explain. To-day the Glasgow Corporation can borrow money on short loans. My mother was of the Scottish thrifty type, and God knows how she could save, but she did save, and I remember that her first money went into the Glasgow Corporation on three
months' call. It is true that it differs from the bank, but already the corporation have, on short call, practically the facilities which can be given by a bank. A short term loan system has been in operation in Glasgow for a period of years. They found that for the purposes of the city they could borrow money in that way even from working people, and so have a cheap supply of money available as against a high borrowing system.
It is said that the present time is not appropriate to venture into the business of bankers. I admit this fact. I will never take part if I can avoid it in an English-Scottish quarrel as to whether we are superior or inferior to England. I think that man for man we are very much alike, but we in Glasgow have certain traditions which are not common to other towns. One of the traditions is that there is a civic spirit. Nobody who knows that city would deny it. The municipal elections are fought with a great deal of interest, almost as much as that which is in evidence during Parliamentary elections. We have the people taking an interest in affairs in a way that few citizens can.
One of the features in municipal life in Glasgow to-day is that civil conscience has been created which will ensure patronage being given to any interest run by the city. To-day, if the Glasgow Corporation form a municipal bank, they will enter into it with one of the greatest assets a city can possess, namely, the civic spirit of the city and the spirit of its residents to give the city its chance to use city money for city purposes. No one can deny that the spirit is there. I rather disagree with some of the promoters of the idea of a civic bank in trying to enter into competition on rates of interest. I have never accepted the principle that they will have to pay so much more in order to attract money. A city bank in Glasgow, run by an efficient staff, would, through its civic spirit and without any increase in interest, attract sufficient sums to justify its existence. The city to-day could run it. To those who oppose the proposal, I would say that the Corporation of Glasgow, whether Labour or not, are not fools, and, if we gave them the power to-day to enter into a municipal bank, it would not mean that they would necessarily start it immediately. They
might find the circumstances of to-day were against them and might delay the proposal, but if cheaper money came they would possess the power to establish a municipal bank. One thing that was said against us before the War, and it was a terrible charge, was that we bothered little about housing conditions. To-day in Glasgow one can see what a rapid change has come about among the common people in their desire for decent homes. One of the things that the city would respond to under a civic bank would be the provision of means for decent homes. I am sure that with practically no interest there would be a great response from a municipal bank for the provision of decent homes for our common people in the city of Glasgow.
May I say a word to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and others who say that the Corporation could not run a municipal bank successfully? I am a member of a co-operative bank. That bank is run by ordinary working people, drawn from the working people and managed by people similar to the members of the Glasgow City Council. They are people of great capacity and skill and to-day the cooperative bank is a success. If the Glasgow Corporation entered into the operation of a municipal bank they would have to face Government-appointed auditors and would have to run the gauntlet of a politically-minded population, who would take note of things and would be a constantly challenging factor in regard to every day administration.
Let me take the question of the proposed power to build bus bodies. This is a proposal that is backed not merely by Labour people but by broad-minded Conservatives. To-day the Glasgow Corporation build their own trams and with regard to buses they ask that they should not be in any inferior position compared with the private bus company. In the neighbourhood of Glasgow there are two companies. I think they are both in one combine, but I am not certain. They operate at a reasonable distance outside the city and are known as the Scottish Motor Transport Company and William Alexander. Both companies build their own bus bodies, one at Stirling and the other somewhere in the neighbourhood of the division of the hon. Member for
Hamilton (Mr. Duncan Graham). Their buses run in and out of the city. They can afford to start a complete new bus body building company. They can, buy the machinery and equip it, but the Glasgow Corporation who own buses and trams are able to build their trams but not their buses. The corporation say that if they could employ their workers steadily without having to dismiss any of them, or without having to go on short time they would be able to keep their men employed without any breakages during the year. The consequence would be that the whole unit of manufacture would be employed constantly for the 52 weeks of the year.
We build our trams but the corporation have not built any buses yet because the law does not allow them to do so. They have built trams and they have bought trams which have been built outside. The two classes of trams are running on the same system and the trams built outside cannot compare with the trams built by the Glasgow Corporation. Look at the trams that are running in the London streets to-day which have been built by private enterprise, and compare them with the Glasgow trams, with their heating system, with their beautiful upholstery and every tram a credit to all concerned. Search your privately-built tramcars in any town in Great Britain and they would not compare with the Glasgow trams. That is a business test. I would not put forward anything that could not face up to the business test. Compare the corporation built tram with the private built tram and the Glasgow tram emerges a finer, more beautiful, better finished article than anything produced by private enterprise. The people who work for the Glasgow Corporation are paid under conditions with which few can compete. They have pensions. I sometimes wonder at the sincerity of hon. Members opposite. They talk about giving pensions to workers. Here is a corporation providing pensions and those same hon. Members when they are asked to support this particular power for which the Glasgow Corporation asks, say: "Do not give it to the Glasgow Corporation but give it to outside people." They do not carry out what they themselves have asked for year in and year out. The Glasgow Corporation in regard to its trams emerges with credit, and no one who knows the position could say otherwise.
What is the case with regard to the Provosts? The Glasgow Corporation have had three-year Provosts. In a large number of towns in this country a gratuity is given for expenses. That is not an uncommon procedure. A certain sum of money is allocated for entertainment, but not for personal use. That, however, is not the custom in Scotland. Men who have not private means have a right to be selected. The Labour party have a right to elect workmen as Provosts. If I were giving a word of advice to the Conservatives it would be to trust their own workpeople more than they do. Democracy might say that I should be a Provost. In that case and if I wanted to be a Provost I think I should carry a provostship as well as most men. Why should a man be debarred from becoming a Provost because of his poverty? A man of moderate means may look at a provostship for a year. A man of moderate means in my own city has been referred to as a likely Provost. I have a great regard for his capacity. If you ask a man of moderate means to be Provost for three years you are asking him to carry a financial burden that he cannot bear, but if you limit the term for a year he can manage.
The Corporation of Glasgow are not making grants of money. They ask at least that there should be a little more access to the post of Provost by the humble citizens. In any case that is how I see it. I hope I do not accuse colleagues of, dishonesty, but I wish people would not try to get over arguments by tricks. The Members of the Merchants House and Trades House, who elect the Dean of Guild and Deacon Convener, all belong to the Conservative, or, in the old days, the Liberals. What is this party democracy? That your elected representatives shall stand by election responsible to some public body. Here are two people elected by a charter of 400 years ago. Who on the Government benches would tolerate a proposal that there should be two members on the Glasgow Corporation from the Glasgow Trades Council? The Glasgow Corporation say in 1935 that when this Charter was given to these people a different set of circumstances existed. The vote was not then universal. To-day they represent nobody but a little group, yet they may be the deciding factors in the spending of large sums of money. The corpora-
tion claim that these votes ought to go. I will not say anything about street trading and other aspects, except that the Corporation of Glasgow can manage a business. Much the same people who manage the great co-operative movement—which through all the depression has made great progress—now manage the corporation. I do not always agree with the actions of the corporation, but given the chance they can run a bank, and will, I believe, emerge from the test of time having done things well for the sake of my native city. In approving this Bill I believe the House will make Glasgow a better city than before.

9.30 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: Although I disagree with the views of my hon. Friend who has just spoken, there are certain things with which I am, profoundly in sympathy. For example, I would admit that no one would make a better Provost of Glasgow than himself. When listening to his speeches I often think that he has the gift of charming a bird off a tree. It is difficult to get into profound or violent controversy with him, although fundamentally we hold different points of view. May I direct the attention of the House for the moment to the way in which this question arises, for there is a point of procedure to be considered. The procedure of Provisional Order was devised to prevent unnecessary expenditure being incurred by Scottish corporations having to come to London. Of course, Parliament keeps control over Parliamentary procedure in order to watch questions of public policy. The Provisional Order promoted by the Glasgow Corporation was examined by the two appropriate examiners, the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, and they found that these proposals were of a character which required discussion by the House of Commons, and that only a very limited number of the proposed Clauses were suitable for discussion by a Committee sitting in Scotland. I believe the Order had something like 23 Clauses, and, of these, 16 were held by these two chairmen to be of a character and of a magnitude which required first of all to be approved by Parliament.
We are therefore discussing in this Bill to-night a series of Clauses which the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means have decided raise questions of public policy, or of such novelty or importance that they ought to be dealt with by private Bill, and not by a Provisional Order. That places on us the obligation of considering the Clauses now before us from the large point of view of public policy, because they raise that kind of question. They are not such as, in the ordinary course, would be granted a Second Reading in the ordinary way. We are here on the decision of these very expert officials to discuss questions of policy. What are these questions of policy? They differ undoubtedly in magnitude. There is the question of a municipal bank to which considerable attention has been paid. There is a question about which very little has been said, which raises the whole public law of Scotland, and which would put Glasgow under a different public law from any other part of Scotland. There is a question whether you should alter the character of the Corporation, a question as to the tenure of property, a question of the right to build omnibus bodies and the right to issue by-laws to regulate street trading.
In my judgment, the first four of these matters can be decided at once by the House on principle; they require no investigation. They are matters on which an investigation will be of no help; no investigation by a committee would tell you anything. The last two matters are things upon which something might be said, but so far as the other matters are concerned we are in as good a position as we should be at the end of a Committee stage. I say this for this reason; that I do not think the House should forget the more or less understood practice in regard to private Bills. In the ordinary course, I have maintained that the House ought to grant a Second Reading to a Bill if there is a prima facie case for examination; when you have not had time to form a judgment the matter should go before Committee. An occasion on which I remember taking that view was, curiously enough, ten years ago almost to the exact day, on another Glasgow Corporation Bill
concerning the boundaries of the Corporation. On that occasion, I separated myself from a large number of my hon. Friends. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) by a speech opposed the Second Reading of that Bill, which, however, was commended by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton).

Mr. MAXTON: And the last time we differed.

Sir R. HORNE: The hon. Member for Bridgeton was careful to say that the hon. Member for Gorbals speech was the best speech made in the Debate although in the worst possible cause. Mr. James Adamson and Mr. Charles Brown voted against the Second Reading of the Bill, but the hon. Member for Bridgeton and I carried a majority of the House. I am saying this in order that we may safeguard the practice of the House. I maintain that if there is prima facie case made out in the Clauses of the Bill the House should give it a Second Reading. Here we are in a different situation. The questions are submitted to us as questions of importance and policy which require no immediate investigation by a committee. The hon. Member for Gorbals has referred to certain remarks which have been made in Glasgow. There are some of us who have been much more unfairly dealt with than the hon. Member in the interview to which he has referred. I am bound to raise this matter. A very important official of the Glasgow Corporation—if he had been an irresponsible member I should have taken no notice—the treasurer of the City Corporation said in this interview:
The Glasgow and West of Scotland Unionist Members of Parliament were asked to back the Bill, but had declined. This meant that they were refusing to carry out the democratic decisions of the majority of the electors in their constituencies, which was something new in Parliamentary procedure.
I protest against any such idea. I certainly refused to back the Bill. I am not going to back a Bill nearly every principle of which is entirely contrary to my own convictions, any more than I should back a Bill which proposed to destroy the cathedral of Glasgow and to build tenements. The suggestion is that the Member for a constituency is bound to back every Bill which affects the constituency. I protest against any such theory. It never has been the principle or the practice of this House; and I hope
it will never be considered to be so. In this interview, the city treasurer went on to say:
We regard the opposition by the English Members of Parliament as a manoeuvre framed by their Scottish colleagues to create the impression that they are quiescent in the matter.
That is to say, that we are supposed to have hidden behind our English colleagues and suggested the opposition which is now represented by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). I wish to say that there is not one word of truth in that suggestion, that there is no foundation for the statement, and that there never has been any foundation for it. I wish to say further that not a single Unionist Member of Parliament for Glasgow has had any conversation whatsoever with those who represent the opposition to this Bill at any time before the Motion for rejection was put down, and, as far as I am concerned—and I think the same is true of every other Unionist Member from Glasgow—I have never had any speech with any single individual in Parliament who is moving for the rejection of the Bill until yesterday. That was the first moment on which I have had any contact with any person who was moving in this matter, and then I never gave advice or guidance or sought any in that conversation. I wish to make on behalf of the Unionist Members from Scotland a strong protest against statements of this kind, which are entirely fabricated and without any foundation whatever. The treasurer of the city corporation goes on:
When he was in the House of Commons last week he learned of the whole plot and was then told that the Unionist Members of Parliament"—
And so on. I do not know what he was told, but I can assure the House that there was no plot. Further, the Unionist Members from Glasgow met to discuss this matter for the first time yesterday afternoon, and we spent a very anxious time in trying to discover whether there was any appreciable portion of the Bill for which we could vote in order that a Second Reading might be granted, with the excision of certain Clauses. I have come to the conclusion, and my colleagues agree, that there is so very little left, after our opposition on matters of principle has been expressed, that it is scarcely worth while the corporation taking a Second Reading of what remains.
Let me put forward my views on the matters which have been raised. I take the first and what is the largest question, namely, the proposal to set up a municipal bank. I am against setting up a municipal bank in principle and for this reason. Banking is a very different thing from spending, and the people who do the banking should not be the same people who spend the funds. The one idea in the mind of a banker is to safeguard the money put in his charge, and, if he is at the same time thinking of spending the money he has collected, on some object, no matter how fruitful he may think it to be, and no matter how meritorious, he is taking an entirely wrong attitude towards his first duty. His first and only duty is to look after his depositors. If his mind is deflected by any other consideration there is no question at all that he is not in a fit position to carry out his duty. That is the primary reason against a municipality which is spending money having the control of money in a bank.
I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals the greatest possible respect and admiration for the Glasgow Corporation, which compares favourably with that of any other city in the Kingdom. Its enterprise and the progress that has taken place under the general schemes which have been promoted in Glasgow, are something of which any city may well be proud; and in most instances I would trust the Corporation to do what was right for the benefit of the whole of the citizens. But I cannot share my hon. Friend's point of view that the Glasgow Corporation was going to wait for some suitable time at which to start a municipal bank. As he well knows, the Corporation did start a bank without asking for the authority of Parliament, and the citizens of Glasgow took a case to the Court of Session and had the Corporation interdicted from carrying on activities which were beyond their powers. It is idle to say that they are only taking these powers to exercise them at some future time when conditions are suitable, seeing that they started them at a time that was the most unsuitable ever known.
I do not know whether any bank, even the biggest and most powerful, is making big profits to-day. I would remind my hon. Friend of one fact. A bank cannot invest all its money. It has to be ready
to pay out money to any depositor who asks for it, and, therefore, it must always keep a large amount of cash which is earning no interest at all. In addition to that, it has to keep large reserves against the possibility of the investments it makes dropping, and its having to sell them when they will not realise the money put into them. Any corporation in this country can to-day borrow more cheaply than it could by any chance raise it from the public payments into a municipal bank. But this is the time when the Glasgow Corporation proposes to start a municipal bank. It may have been observed that recently the municipal bank at Birmingham refused to take any new deposits because it could not pay the interest upon them without running itself into difficulties. Another bank in Scotland which shut up last week was liquidated because the corporation which had started it on a rather doubtful legality found that it could borrow money more cheaply than the bank could possibly afford to lend it.
To-day, of all times, there is no case at all for municipal banking, whatever it may be at another time. If Glasgow had come forward and said, "There is no means by which the small person can put his savings into a bank, because the big banks will not take small deposits," if there had been a case of that kind, we might have listened with some sympathy to it. But what is the case in Glasgow? It has the biggest and best savings bank that exists in this country to-day. Of all cities of which it could be suggested that there are not suitable means for conserving the savings of the people, the last city to be suggested is Glasgow. Let me give one or two figures. The bank has three departments. In those three departments they have 378,000 depositors and they added 39,000 last year. The transactions numbered nearly 2,000,000. The deposits of sums not exceeding £l represented 44 per cent. of the total number of the total deposits. The balance due to-day to depositors is over £30,000,000. Its assets as against those deposits are £31,000,000, including the value of the bank building. I wish to correct a statement made by the hon. Member for Gorbals. He spoke of millions of profit having been made.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The Glasgow Corporation at that time were paying 5 per
cent. for money, but the bank was paying Glasgow citizens only 2½ per cent.

Sir R. HORNE: That is quite right, but the hon. Member forgets the management expenses and the cash that has to be put on one side to be paid out on demand. That cash earns no interest at all. I could enlighten my hon. Friend on the question of profit. Over 99 years, so carefully has the bank been managed and so little has it taken off its depositors, that the whole of the surplus, including buildings, is £1,500,000. Who can say that there is any great profit of millions which can be expected? What this bank has done has been to keep the deposits absolutely safe, and that is the only object that such a bank should have. The intention is to create thrift, and in order to do that you must give an absolute certainty to the man whom you induce to deposit his money. I entirely agree with what was decided long ago by a Treasury Committee when they found this:
It seems prima facie preferable that the authority which controls a savings bank should not have the spending of the money at all. Its policy should represent no interest but that of the depositors, and should be directed solely to placing the bank's funds most profitably and wisely.
With that statement, I leave this part of the Bill. There is a provision in this Bill dealing with property which has become unoccupied. I am not going to argue the merits of the question now. It may be right or wrong. So far as I am concerned, I do not think it is right. A debt due for rates has always been a personal charge on the debtor, but this alters, in the case of Glasgow, the whole law of Scotland. You propose to have a different law of bankruptcy in Glasgow from what you have in the other communities in Scotland, and I say that you cannot do that by a private Bill. Whether it is right or wrong, it must be done by a straightforward alteration of the public law. There are other matters. There is the question of the Dean of Guild and Deacon Convener. I would say to members of the corporation: What are they making all this pother about? Cannot they bear to see two people who are in general of a different political colour from their own? Are they going to sacrifice the reputation of the Corporation as a great business organisation for such good as they may
get from a mere paltry prejudice? I would ask my hon. Friend opposite to revise his point of view.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I sat on the Corporation for five years, and I must confess that whatever advice these two men gave there were plenty of Members of the right hon. Gentleman's own party who did not follow it.

Sir R. HORNE: I think the hon. Member will find that a great deal of advice has been given privately. With regard to whether the Lord Provost should be in office for five years or three years, I do not think it is of very great importance, but if we are going to alter the position in Glasgow, let us alter it altogether in Scotland and not in the case of Glasgow only. With regard to the other two matters, I do not think I should be wrong if I took the view that the Glasgow Corporation should not think it worth while to go to the expense of an inquiry under the private Bill system to do what is proposed here. This particular Bill is entirely out of tune and out of tone with the point of view which the great majority of the Members of this House hold, and upon which we are bound, on our own conscience, holding the views that we do and being enjoined by my hon. Friend to express them and carry them through ruthlessly, to express ourselves to-night quite candidly about the matter and to save the Glasgow Corporation and its ratepayers the expense of trying to carry through a Bill which we think is entirely unfortunate. I would therefore venture to advise my friends that it is not worth while carrying this matter through, and, much as I would like in other circumstances to support the Glasgow Corporation, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot on this occasion do anything but oppose the Second Reading of the Bill.

10 p.m.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I desire to express my support of Clause 3 of this Bill. I wish to uphold the proposal to give Glasgow the power to create a municipal bank, and I do so largely because of one's experience in Birmingham. Part of the City of Birmingham lies in my constituency, and I know from conversations and inquiries what a boon the municipal bank in Birmingham is to the
working classes and particularly to the small shopkeepers. Influenced largely by the success of the Birmingham bank, for the proof of the pudding is in the eating of it, I shall gladly see Glasgow provided with a similar institution. This is a business proposition. A very large number of the supporters of the municipal bank in Birmingham are Conservatives, and if a proposal was made to destroy the Birmingham municipal bank, there would be a loud outcry, and a substantial part of it would come from Conservatives, who would be the first to object to the destruction of the bank.
I have listened to the prophecies that have been made by various Members on this side as to what would happen if Glasgow had a municipal bank. Exactly the same prophecies were trotted out when the Birmingham bank was started. Those prophecies have proved untrue, and I am not going to allow myself to be influenced by precisely similar prophecies about the possibilities in Glasgow. I am going to pray in aid of my attitude certain words of a very great authority, one whose authority will not be questioned in this House. I wish to tell the House what is the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to municipal banks. A book was brought out some few years ago, entitled "Britain's First Municipal Savings Bank," written by the manager of the Birmingham bank, Mr. J. P. Hilton, and in that book there is a foreword by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who says:
Reflecting on the contents of these pages, certain questions will naturally arise in the minds of readers. Is this supremely successful experiment to remain unique? Is Birmingham to have the sole monopoly of this fruitful idea, which, in the space of less than eight years, has enabled her citizens to accumulate nearly £8,000,000 of savings? Have we indeed reached the limit of what municipal enterprise should be allowed to attempt if we confine it to a single town? For my part, I would as soon endeavour to imprison a volcano.
That is the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will give one other extract, from a speech by the same right hon. Gentleman, quoted in the House and appearing in the OFFICIAL REPORT:
You may call it Socialism if you like. I have never been frightened by a name. I do not care whether it is Socialism or not, so long as it is a good thing. I think our experience proves that the municipal savings bank has advantages which other
forms of savings banks have not."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1928; col. 1690, Vol. 213.]
Influenced by those very weighty words from one whose authority we all respect, I wish to give my support to Clause 3 of the Bill.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. LEONARD: Before the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) leaves the House might I make a slight reference to the initial part of his speech to-night regarding the statement that he and his colleagues were not going to associate themselves with the Labour Members? In so far as the two Labour Members representing the City of Glasgow are concerned, there was no doubt as to what would be the attitude of himself and his colleagues, and I do not think that anyone I know in Glasgow anticipated that they would not adopt the attitude that was expressed by him to-night. I would like to refer to what the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) said with regard to the attitude that is adopted in this Bill to the Dean of Guild and the Deacon Convener. The suggestion contained in his speech is that these two are representative of great business organisations. I am prepared to accept the fact that in the early days they had a most valuable and intimate connection with business, but to-day, especially with regard to the Merchants' House, they are looked on more as a charitable organisation than anything else. That practically covers its functions. For that reason we see no reason for continuing a practice that was started, I am informed by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Lock-wood), in 1605. I know a number of people in the various trades in Glasgow, and they do not use the machinery of their Guilds for trade purposes. The persons who are ultimately selected as Deacon Conveners are not selected for their ability to express trade interests. There is absolutely no reason why the practice that has continued so long should still be allowed to continue.
With regard to the Provostship, a gentleman in Glasgow speaking to me on this matter expressed in a terse way what I think is at the back of many Conservative minds. His fear was that if a change were made from the three-year tenure of office we should not get
men of dignity and substance to occupy that position. I agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals that there is dignity and substance, and dignity and substance, and I am not prepared to accept the suggestion that members of the Corporation who are not moneyed persons, and who do not live in high social circles, are not equal to keeping up the dignity of Glasgow. This method has not always secured dignity and substance in the Provosts that have gone before.
I want to express my surprise at the attitude that has been adopted in regard to the building of bus bodies. This is a matter that might be termed one of public policy—so termed by the right hon. Member for Hillhead—but it is a matter of extreme importance to Glasgow and, in a differing extent, to the rest of Scotland. Glasgow has had to keep abreast with changes in transport methods, and the Corporation—not because they dislike trams; they are very proud of them—have had to adopt buses as a means of transport. They have already spent no less than between £700,000 and £1,000,000, on buses and equipment, and there is a demand in the city that the fares that have to be charged in respect of the buses should in some way be reduced. Everything that can be provided in order to reduce the upkeep of the buses will help in reducing fares. No one can gainsay the fact that we have built trams satisfactorily, and from the point of view of economical production no one can cast a stone at us. While it may be stated that we are in unfair competition with private firms, that I cannot see. I think it was the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) who said that it was unfair to withhold this work from private firms, because if the private firms got the work they would be able to reduce their costs and compete in the export trade. That may or may not be so, but it must be remembered that when a municipality, in vehicle building, has displayed such efficiency as Glasgow, it has not got the country to appeal to. It can only build for its own restricted use. But Glasgow has shown that, notwithstanding the fact that the great field of the whole country is not open to it, it can build trams at the economical rates to which I have referred.
Glasgow has built up machinery in order to eater for its requirements in so far as rolling-stock is concerned. Glasgow has that right now. If you withhold that right in so far as it applies to buses, you may take from Glasgow a right that at present applies, because buses are making inroads, and are becoming very popular. It is possible, owing to their efficiency and suitability, that the buses may at some time supplant the tramcars altogether, and if that takes place you will eliminate—perhaps that is the intention—this productive unit of the Glasgow Corporation. There may be something in the intention of hon. Gentlemen who are opposing this Bill—a hope that in the near future they will be able to eliminate this productive unit. That aspect of the question has to be considered. I wonder why it is that the hon. Member for South Croydon has not been more perturbed with regard to the people who have set themselves to bus building. He made no reference to the railway companies.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I pointed out that the railway companies built their own locomotives. They might have done just the same with regard to coaches.

Mr. LEONARD: But that is just what the railway companies are doing—building buses that might go to the bus building concerns. I want to deal with this from the point of view that the ratepayers may in some way be involved in loss. I have here an official statement from the city chamberlain of Glasgow giving in detail the position of this great undertaking. I find that from the depreciation and permanent way renewal fund there has been applied in reduction of debt no less than £4,700,000. The outstanding loan debt on 31st May, 1934, was £3,800,000, and the total amount at the credit of the depreciation and permanent way renewal fund on 31st May, 1934, was no less than £3,900,000. Towards local rates the transport undertaking has paid £3,200,000, and in property and income tax £1,300,000, while they have paid no less a sum than £1,226,000 to the Common Good Fund of the City. The people of Glasgow through the medium of their elected authority have proved themselves to be quite capable of safeguarding the economic interests of the city; and it is well to mention these facts in view of the statements which have been made
concerning the need to safeguard the rates of the city.
With regard to the municipal bank question, I wonder why so much fear should be expressed by certain hon. Gentlemen as to the results which would follow in Glasgow if this permission were granted. According to the provisions in the Bill itself, the bank would be carried on in accordance with such regulations as the Treasury may prescribe. We have already been told by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers) that one municipality which got permission to establish such a bank afterwards found that the Treasury conditions were so severe that they decided not to go ahead with the project. I think that is an indication of how effective the Treasury control is in these matters, and, if the Treasury regulations applicable to the municipal bank in Glasgow are to be similar to the regulations applied in the case referred to, there does not seem to be much fear of the interests of the ratepayers being overlooked.

Sir W. SMITHERS: The whole point is, that if you start a municipal bank in Glasgow during a period of cheap money, on a basis of £5,000,000 deposits it will cost the ratepayers £50,000 a year.

Mr. LEONARD: I do not wish to go into details, but, speaking from memory, I believe that at the present time outstanding loans are costing the city £3 17s. per cent. on an average. I am not a banker and I do not propose to go into the intricacies of banking with the hon. Member, but I understand that in so far as there is any of this cheap money about which we hear so much, it is all on short term loans. I am inclined to believe that the Corporation of Glasgow might not feel it desirable nor would it be judicious on their part, to try to run the city on short term loans. However that is a matter which could be much better gone into in Committee, and that is another reason why I resent the fact that hon. Members should oppose the Bill going to a Committee. The hon. Member for Gorbals has already dealt with the civic sense which displays itself in Glasgow, and the desire of many ordinary people to bank their money on loans with the Corporation. At one time before Labour influences had made themselves felt, it was not possible to give a sum on loan to the
Corporation unless you had at least £50. It was only on the intervention of some Labour representatives that that sum was reduced to £5 and it still stands at £5, and I agree with the hon. Member that there are many people in Glasgow who would like to put money into an institution in which it would be guaranteed to some extent and in which they knew it would be used for the upkeep, welfare and progress of their native city.
Again speaking from memory, I would recall a discussion which I had on one occasion with a friend of mine who was greatly interested in National Savings Associations. I think that there is an arrangement whereby the income in certain localities from national savings certificates is, by agreement with the Government, lent back to the localities to the extent of 50 per cent. That is a recognition of what we want in Glasgow. It is a recognition by the Government that it is desirable to allow money that has been collected in a locality to go back for the benefit and use of that locality. I feel that this question of a municipal bank should receive greater and more detailed consideration than it can have in the House. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Hill-head (Sir R. Horne) state that it was inadvisable to countenance an organisation of this kind in which the directors would also be councillors. That all depends on the point of view from which you look at the question. I do not think it would jeopardise the interest of depositors but would rather protect them. The right hon. Gentleman has his angle of looking at this question and I have mine, and I am inclined to prefer my own view.
The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) told us that he was not going to apologise for opposing this Bill, and I think that he was right because geographical divisions do not exist in this House. We are all here representing well-defined interests which have nothing to do with England or Scotland as such, but are based on well-defined interests which are in conflict. It is because the principles of this Bill are contrary to the dominant interests of commerce and trade, and not because of any geographical considerations, that opposition to the Bill has been adduced.

10.23 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): I cannot agree with the concluding sentiment of the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard). I do not hold that we in this House are representing different interests. We are all representing different parts of the country and we all represent the interests of the country as a whole. I agree with him that it is the right of every Member to take part in a debate which concerns any part of the country, and especially a part which is of great value and interest to the whole Empire. I shall not detain the House long, but I think it right that a Member of the Front Bench should take part in the Debate. It is not in any way doing a disservice to Glasgow or treating that great city with indignity that the whole House of Commons should concern itself in her affairs. It is just because Glasgow is a city of such importance—I believe the second largest in the Empire—that the House of Commons has it as its duty to decide a matter which will affect the fate of all the inhabitants of that city. I rather resented the implied threat of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) when he said that if English Members interfered with Scottish business he and his friends would do something terrible to prevent the passage of any English Bill. I do not know how he meant to accomplish it, but there was an unpleasantly menacing tone in the way in which he spoke. There was a complaint from the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) as to the method of dealing with the Bill by deciding its fate on Second Reading. I think that objection has been satisfactorily answered by the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). We are saving the money of the Corporation of Glasgow by deciding this issue, if we do decide it, on one vote this evening.
The position I take up with regard to the setting up of a municipal bank is that at the present time it is a bad suggestion and that it would be bad business, and not a single Member from the other side of the House has suggested anything to the contrary. Everybody knows that to set up a municipal bank when money is as cheap as it is to-day would be an extremely unwise step. The hon. Member for Gorbals,
with his usual ingenuity, suggested that that was not really the issue. He said "Give us the power to set it up and we will do it in our own good time"; but, as has already been pointed out, the Corporation of Glasgow have already gone very far—until they found that they could go no further—towards setting up a bank, and I would ask the hon. Member whether he could give any guarantee that if the Bill passed to-day they would not proceed to set up a bank almost immediately. A proposition of this kind ought to be decided on its merits. It would be a dangerous principle to give municipalities wide powers on the understanding that they were not to exercise them at the present time, but might possibly do so in the future when the course of affairs had changed. There is no immediate prospect, so far as I am aware, of money becoming dearer, and therefore there is no immediate prospect of these powers being needed by a wise corporation of Glasgow or any other city.
Not only is this proposal bad business, but, if I may respectfully say so to hon. Members opposite, it is bad Socialism. The difference between the conditions when a municipal bank was set up in Birmingham and the conditions which exist in Glasgow to-day has been referred to again and again. Not only was money very much dearer then, but it is also a fact that there were then insufficient facilities for people, especially poorer people, to save their money. There was then a real demand for such a bank. Nobody can suggest that there is such a demand in Glasgow to-day. There are two institutions, the Post Office Savings Bank and the Trustee Savings Bank, both working admirably and both conferring great benefits on the community. There is no better example of a Trustee Savings Bank than the one in Glasgow. The hon. Member for Govan said "There are two already, why not have a third?" I always thought that if Socialism stands for anything sensible it does stand for getting rid of unnecessary competition. Here we have two institutions providing the community with what they want and the Socialists coming along and saying, "Start a third." The same observation surely applies to the buses.
The hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Lockwood) made a slight error, which the hon. Member for Govan was quick to pounce upon. He understood
that it was the intention of the Bill to hand over the Trustee Savings Bank to the Corporation, and naturally the hon. Member for Govan was delighted to discover him in such a mistake. But it seems to me a very natural mistake to make, and, upon my word, I think it would have been a far more sensible suggestion, far more in accordance with true Socialism, that the Government or the Corporation should take over a going concern and run it in the interests of the community rather than start an opposition concern to compete with it. Hon. Members opposite have often threatened us with the taking over of the Bank of England when they have the opportunity. I believe that is part of their policy. I differ from that policy, I think it would be an error, and I think it might produce many evils; but certainly it would be a very much more sensible proposition than starting an opposition bank. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh at that themselves, but that is exactly what they are asking the Corporation of Glasgow to do. They have told us that in the vicinity of Glasgow there are already two firms who supply trams and buses, and yet they say that that is a reason for starting a third business in opposition.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The Corporation of Glasgow already make them, and in that respect the proposal is not to start a new business but to undertake a certain expansion.

Mr. COOPER: I am well aware of what is being done. I have listened with admiration to the way in which the trams and buses are being manufactured, how well they are upholstered and how pleasing to the eye as well as comfortable to the form. If they are so good, they are probably superior to the trams and buses turned out by other firms because they will be made to compete with the products of other firms, and the firm which makes them manages to stay in business. When I consult the figures I find that the Glasgow Corporation have only exercised the power to make tramcars to a very limited extent. From 1919 to 1924 they manufactured 149 bodies in their own workshops, but in 1927 only one sample body. Since then, they have manufactured no tramcars at all.

Mr. LEONARD: Is that not connected with the changes that have taken place in regard to alternative methods of travel?

Mr. COOPER: The manufacturers of the tramcars now in use by the Glasgow Corporation have satisfied, and wonderfully satisfied, the people of Glasgow. They have provided all that the people need without attempting to compete with business firms outside. If they had attempted to do so they would have been unable to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] There has been no continuous demand for the manufacture of tramcars, because the people have all that they need, and when you have all that you need you do not want any more. That is exactly the fallacy of a municipality's entering into trades which already satisfactorily supply a demand. When that demand is satisfied, there is no need to make any more, and therefore the municipality's overhead expenses are wasted, the industry which the municipality has created to manufacture for their town is no longer wanted, and the people who have been employed fall out of employment. On the other hand, people who are competing in the ordinary market naturally take their products—tramcars or motor cars, for example—to whatever market may be open to them. When there is a sufficient supply from outside by two business firms who supply one market only, it is very bad business to set up a third competing agency.
The hon. Member for Gorbals told us of the civic spirit of Glasgow. We recognise and admire that civic spirit, but there is nothing more unfortunate than when the civic spirit of a great city is misled, because that may lead to disaster. Anybody who studies, not the ancient history but the recent history, of other countries, say of France and America, know the awful misfortunes which have befallen great cities owing to bad administration, which creeps more easily into municipal government than into the government of a great State. It is therefore dangerous to rely too much upon the civic spirit of a community to support, as they naturally do, their elected governors—temporarily elected governors—and to give powers which may not in the long run be used for the peoples' good. It has been proved this evening, and not been denied, that the powers which the city of Glasgow have asked for could not be used for the good of the people at the present time. Why, then, should we rely, either upon their not using these powers at the
present time, or upon some future corporation, of which at the present time we can have no knowledge, not making use of them for the purposes of an unwise project? I think that my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has fully made out the case for his Amendment, and that, if anyone were inclined to waver while listening to the extremely eloquent and ingenious speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals their faith must have been restored when my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) replied to it. I honestly think that anyone who has listened to the Debate and who has come to it with an open mind will see that no case for the Bill has been made out.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I have listened to discussions on many Private Bills in this House, and have listened to many statements made upon them from the Front Government Bench, but I never knew a more appropriate, or, indeed, I may say, unfortunate statement than the one which has just been made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. A House of Commons of whom all except 15 have no local knowledge or interest, but wanted merely a dispassionate and objective statement on the Bill, has received instead an anti-Socialist tirade delivered with greater heat and passion than the hon. Gentleman has ever displayed on any other occasion. It is a complete misuse of the House of Commons, and a complete misunderstanding of the duty which the House is, assembled here tonight to perform. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) did me the honour of recalling the fact that, when a Conservative majority in the Glasgow Corporation—a majority that was objectionable to me—came here with a Bill, I supported it, along with him, although I had considerable objections to the majority that sat on the Glasgow Corporation and managed the affairs of Glasgow at that time.

Sir R. HORNE: The hon. Gentleman will remember that a large number of his colleagues voted against the Glasgow Corporation on that occasion.

Mr. MAXTON: I agree. I remember that a fair number of Labour Members voted on that occasion against the Second Reading, just as, I gather, the right hon.
Gentleman himself is going to do tonight. I think that their view was as wrong as his is. When the largest city in Scotland, and the second city in the Empire, comes to this House, having taken all the trouble of preparing a Measure and having gone to all the expense of promoting it in this House, the House has to be furnished with something better in condemnation of it than has been produced before it takes the responsibility of rejecting the Measure. One point which has been made is that in this Measure for Glasgow there are some things that other Members would not want adopted in their particular area or town. Therefore they say, "Because we do not want it in our town, Glasgow is not to have it in their town, and we must not allow any municipality to have a single activity of any description unless we are prepared to pass a law making that particular activity general for the whole country." Could anyone ever propound a more silly idea of statecraft than that before we can experiment in any direction, anything upon which we want to experiment has to be adopted broadcast over the whole country? Why come here and talk, as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen always talk when it suits them, about the great institution of local government that we have in this country, and of the fine men who are doing that work, and that we in the central Government must not do anything that would interfere with their duties and with the carrying out of their functions? If that is more than mere lip-service to local government, and if local government is really respected by this House, then here is a municipality, Glasgow, asking to try out certain things which are not generally done throughout the country because of your class and political prejudices. There has been nothing else here to-night from that side of the House except political prejudices.
We have had a long story from one or two hon. Gentlemen, notably the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers). I am always glad to hear them giving of their knowledge on expert matters like the running of banks. All that they and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead have told us is that it is
a difficult thing to run a bank successfully. I knew that before they started talking. Everyone of them has paid tribute to the tremendous work which has been done by the Glasgow Savings Bank. I wonder if they know that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and myself are all directors of that bank, and that the control of that bank is vested in a certain number of people. We are not the only three directors. The 15 Members of the City of Glasgow are all trustees, governors, or whatever the term may be of the Trustee Savings Bank. Its governing body is drawn entirely from publicly-elected people. When the hon. Member for South Croydon and the hon. Member for Chislehurst tell mo that it is difficult to run a bank successfully, I say that I know better than they do, because we are running one, and running it successfully.
The one thing in this Bill to which objection is made is the municipal bank. There is one thing with which I agree in the propaganda speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and that is that this Bill is not Socialism. Socialism will not come to this country in that way. Glasgow is doing its bit for Socialism. There were 50,000 people demonstrating in the streets of Glasgow yesterday because of unemployment. That is the way in which Socialism is coming, and not merely by coming here with a Bill to ask for permission to run a municipal bank. That there were 50,000 people demonstrating in Glasgow yesterday is what you have to consider when fighting Socialism, and not a private Bill brought in in a perfectly legitimate way through perfectly legitimate channels. They come here asking for powers to do certain things that any municipality has a perfect right to ask for and that this House has no right to withhold from them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I repeat that this House has no right to withhold from them. This House has the right to examine any Bill coming from any corporation and to say: "Is there something in this Bill that is injurious to the general body politic?" If so, this House has the right to reject it, but when a corporation comes forward, after due and proper consideration, and asks for powers to carry out certain activities
that they believe will be for the enhancement of the general civic life, it is the duty of this House to give them the necessary powers to enable them to proceed with that civic work.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 190.

Division No. 121.]
AYES.
[10.47 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Aske, Sir Robert William
Janner, Barnett
Parkinson, John Allen


Attlee, Clement Richard
Jenkins, Sir William
Rathbone, Eleanor


Batey, Joseph
John, William
Rea, Walter Russell


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, George
Kirkwood, David
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Cleary, J. J.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
Leonard, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Stephen Owen
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wilmot, John


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
McGovern, John
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton



Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Paling.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dixey, Arthur C. N.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Doran, Edward
Leighton, Major S. E. P.


Albery, Irving James
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Liddall, Walter S.


Alexander, Sir William
Dunglass, Lord
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Eastwood, John Francls
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Mabane, William


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Emrys Evans, P. V.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
McKie, John Hamilton


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Everard, W. Lindsay
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Bateman, A. L.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Magnay, Thomas


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'th, C.)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Martin, Thomas B.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Blindell, James
Gledhill, Gilbert
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Boulton, W. W.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Bracken, Brendan
Goff, Sir Park
Moreing, Adrian C.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Munro, Patrick


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hen. John
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Nunn, William


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hanbury, Cecil
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pearson, William G.


Burghley, Lord
Harbord, Arthur
Peat, Charles U.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hartington, Marquess of
Penny, Sir George


Burnett, John George
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Carver, Major William H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Petherick, M.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(Wverh'pt'n, Bilston)


Christie, James Archibald
Hepworth, Joseph
Pike, Cecil F.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hornby, Frank
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Horobin, Ian M.
Radford, E. A.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Conant, R. J. E.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Cook, Thomas A.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Rankin, Robert


Cooper, A. Duff
James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Craven-Ellis, William
Jamleson, Douglas
Remer, John R.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rickards, George William


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Ker, J. Campbell
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cross, R. H.
Kerr, Lieut.-Cot. Charles (Montrose)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Crossley, A. C.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Llverp'l)


Davies, Mal. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Salmon, Sir Isldore


Davison, Sir William Henry
Kimball, Lawrence
Salt, Edward W.


Denville, Alfred
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Dickie, John P.
Law, Sir Alfred
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Wells, Sydney Richard


Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Templeton, William P.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dlne, C.)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Smithers, Sir Waldron
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Train, John
Womersley, Sir Walter


Soper, Richard
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.



Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Stevenson, James
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)
Mr. John Lockwood and Mr.


Stones, James
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Herbert Williams


Stourton, Hon. John J.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.



Question put, and agreed to.

Words added.

Second Reading put off for six months.

Orders of the Day — SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to leave out Clause 136."
I do not think that the Instructions on this Bill will take more than two or three minutes. I understand that as a result of various conversations the Sunderland Corporation will, in Committee, move the Instruction which I now move formally to leave out Clause 136. I understand that they propose to drop Clause 143, and to propose agreed Amendments to Clause 229. With regard to Clauses 261 and 262, I think in order to be consistent with the decision the House has just taken, that the Instruction should be formally moved and carried without the necessity of going to a Division. With regard to Clause 295, I understand that the corporation have agreed to drop this Clause in Committee, and I understand that it is not proposed to move to leave out Clause 291. Having regard to the explanations which have been given the Clause seems to be a desirable one.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I beg to second the Motion.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. STOREY: I think it will be convenient if I inform the House that the Corporation are prepared in Committee to omit Clauses 136 and 295. In regard to Clauses 261 and 262, we propose to offer no objection to the acceptance of the Motion which stands in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). As regards Clause 291 we
welcome the decision that the Motion is not to be pressed this evening. The Clause is designed to provide for cold storage facilities which are necessary in connection with the deep water basin scheme to be built by the corporation in an endeavour to attract trade to a depressed area. In regard to Clauses 143 and 229, we will at a later stage move to omit Clause 143 and to move certain Amendments to Clause 229, which will meet the views of those in whose name the Motion stands.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to leave out Clauses 261 and 262."

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I beg to second the Motion.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — PROSECUTION AND CONVICTION, WEALDSTONE (APPEAL).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir F. Thomson.]

10.59 p.m.

Mr. WILMOT: I want to detain the House for two or three minutes to call attention to a matter of very grave public concern. It concerns the right of an individual to appeal against a conviction by a court of summary jurisdiction. I wish to bring to the notice of hon. Members a case in which a man convicted by such a court of a trivial offence gave notice of appeal. The notice was mishandled by the clerk to the justices, and by reason of the fault of the official of the court the man was deprived of his legal right of appeal. I suggest that this accident,
which has inflicted a tragedy upon a humble citizen, has raised at the same time a question of grave public concern. The facts of the case I will briefly relate.
A certain John O'Neill, a young married man, employed by a dairy company as a milk roundsman, carried on his calling with success to his employers and with an increase of popularity amongst his customers to himself. He was well thought of until on a certain day the employer introduced a new and somewhat complicated system of book-keeping for the roundsmen. Upon the introduction of this complicated system, this man and many others employed likewise found themselves in trouble with their bookkeeping department, owing to alleged discrepancies between the amounts shown in their books and the amounts paid into the cashier, and this man, amongst others, was warned that this was an undesirable state of affairs. Eventually over a period it was found that this John O'Neill was short on the amount paid in by £3 9s. 10d., and a number of other employés were short as well. It is said by O'Neill that the matter was purely a book-keeping mistake. But with that we are not concerned. The fact remains that O'Neill was charged before the Wealdstone magistrates with embezzling £3 9s. 10¾d., and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
It is not my purpose, nor would it be proper for me, to comment on this sentence upon a first offender, but a solicitor was impressed by the fact that the sentence was very heavy on a first offender and he advised this young man to give notice of appeal. This the man duly did in the proper manner on the day following his conviction. He gave notice from Wormwood Scrubs prison to the clerk of the Wealdstone magistrates. This notice of appeal was duly received. It is admitted to be in good order. But for some reason that has not been disclosed the clerk to the Wealdstone justices omitted to deal with it in the prescribed manner and time, and the result is a very grave one: The Middlesex Quarter Sessions were unable to admit the appeal because of the delay occasioned in its presentation by the clerk of the court. This matter was regarded in legal circles as being of very great importance. A well known
London solicitor took an interest in the case, and with the help of friends of the accused and a large number of his own customers a petition was prepared and sent to the Home Secretary, asking that in the circumstances the case should be re-opened. On 22nd November, after O'Neill had served two months in prison, the Home Secretary replied:
The Secretary of State has caused inquiries to be made, and he agrees it was not due to any fault of his own that O'Neill lost his opportunity of appealing to quarter sessions against a conviction and sentence awarded against him by the summary court, but the Secretary of State has no power to secure that the appeal shall now be heard.
So the unfortunate John O'Neill has served his three months' imprisonment. On his release this charge and conviction hung like a millstone around his neck. He was unable to secure employment and he found his whole circle blasted and poisoned. The matter was brought to my notice by the eminent firm of solicitors who regard this matter with very grave concern. On the 18th February I asked the Home Secretary a question which he was good enough to answer in this House. He again said that his attention had been drawn to the case, but there was no way of restoring to the defendant an opportunity of appealing. In answer to a supplementary question, he said this was all due to a misunderstanding and that he had looked into all the circumstances to see whether there was any way in which he could exercise his prerogative. I then made an appeal that if it was not possible to re-open the case and to make any retribution for this loss of an undoubted legal right, would it not be possible, since the sentence had been served, to expunge the record from the court rolls, so that this man should not carry the burden of this conviction for the rest of his life?
The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was good enough to say, with his usual courtesy, that if I would lay all the facts before him and any fresh circumstances that there might be, he would reconsider the matter. The facts were again summarised, all the information was collected, and it was duly forwarded to the right hon. Gentleman, but there were no new facts. There is only one important fact in this matter, beyond the personal tragedy involved, and that is that a British citizen, who has an un-
doubted right of appeal against a conviction by a court of summary jurisdiction—and in this case a court composed of lay magistrates who imposed a sentence of three months on a first offender for this, in my view, trivial and questionable offence, because this man still protested his innocence—that that individual should have lost that fundamental right by an error of a clerk of the court, and through no fault of his own.
I very much regret to inform the House that the Home Secretary has seen fit to inform me during the last few days that he has again examined the matter and that he can see no way in which he can do anything at all. I submit that there is a very grave principle involved in this matter. This man has lost his legal right through no fault of his own. It is a circumstance that might easily occur again. It might occur to any one of us, and this unfortunate man, young, able, energetic, with a wife and now the beginnings of a small family, finds himself not only with his occupation gone and his chances ruined, but in an unfortunate state of mind, which adds to his personal tragedy, in that he feels he is a victim of an evil process of law. I cannot help thinking that he is right in feeling that, and I would ask this House to consider the matter as one of some gravity and to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether something cannot be done, if nothing more, to remove the record from the roll, and further that steps should be taken so that, in the event of such a thing happening again, the accused, who may be innocent, shall not lose all his rights through a mistake of an official of the court over whom he has no control.

11.9 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Crookshank): I am sure that no one could possibly have any criticism to make upon the hon. Gentleman for having raised this important point to-night, nor indeed for the very moderate way in which he has stated the case. I have listened very carefully to all he said, and I think that on the facts there is nothing between us. After all, the House is not met here to retry this case. This is not the place, nor are we the right people to do it, nor have we full evidence in front of us. What actually
occurred was that this man was prosecuted for embezzlement on no fewer than six charges.

Mr. WILMOT: I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to say, in justice to this man, that "no fewer than six charges" conveys a sense of gravity which is explained by a series of daily entries in a book.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I had not finished my sentence. I am trying to put it as accurately as I can, but there were six different charges, and they involved actually a sum of about £3 10s. He was found to be guilty on three of them and was sentenced to a month's imprisonment on those three charges, to run consecutively, the other three charges being taken into account. There is no dispute about any of that. He was admitted to prison, and he then forwarded notices of appeal both to the clerk to the justices and to the company who were his employers and who had prosecuted him. There is no dispute about that; but the whole trouble which has arisen has been quite frankly due to a misunderstanding on the part of the clerk to the justices. He made a mistake—there is no denying that fact—with the unfortunate result that the time passed during which an appeal could be lodged. Owing to the misunderstanding that had arisen, the clerk to the justices failed to take steps to enter notice of appeal. Notice was not given, and there was no opportunity for an appeal to take place. That is the grievance which this man has, and which the hon. Gentleman has brought to the notice of the House.
My right hon. Friend had heard of this before my hon. Friend raised the matter in the House, because the solicitors at the beginning of November wrote to the Secretary of State and asked him either to authorise an appeal to be heard, or to pardon the prisoner, that is to say, before the sentence had expired. My right hon. Friend has no authority to over-ride the statute. If the statutory time within which an appeal can be lodged has passed, he has no power to deal with the matter from that point of view at all. Therefore, the first suggestion fell to the ground. The second suggestion was that the prisoner should be let off the rest of the sentence, because he had not had the opportunity to appeal. My right hon. Friend, in reply to the hon. Gentleman
the other day, reminded him that the appeal would not necessarily have gone in favour of the prisoner. The court might quite well have increased the sentence, and we must not therefore assume—I think it is fair to say—that even if there had been an appeal there would have been any reduction in the sentence. The question then is: ought the remainder of the sentence to have been remitted, and, in view of the fact that there was this misunderstanding, and the right of appeal was lost, is the procedure under which these matters now come unsatisfactory and ought there to be some amendment of the law?
My right hon. Friend, on receiving these representations from the solicitors, naturally went into the case very carefully to see whether there were any grounds upon which he could recommend the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, in view of the fact that there had been this error. The police did not prosecute in this case; it was the company who employed the man, and therefore there was no police report. My right hon. Friend saw all the notes of evidence, went very carefully into the whole question, and found that there were no grounds for questioning the decision of the justices after the full hearing which they had had of this case, at which O'Neill had been legally represented. As there were no grounds in my right hon. Friend's opinion for recommending the exercise of the prerogative, there were no grounds for a free pardon, because in his view there were no grounds for questioning the decision, nor was the sentence, on the review which he then made, excessive. He gave the matter his most sympathetic consideration on, not one, but three occasions. The matter was first brought to his notice when the man asked to be released from prison, and again when my hon. Friend raised it in the House. In the exercise of the functions of his office, my right hon. Friend did not think it was a case in which he could recommend the exercise of the Prerogative. Some hon. Members may feel tempted to ask on what my right hon. Friend based that opinion. I need only say that it is a long-established constitutional practice observed by successive Secretaries of State for many years, that this is one of the functions inherent in their office of which they are not called upon
to give an explanation, either in this House or to the public outside. Therefore, while the House can be sure that the most careful and sympathetic consideration has been given by my right hon. Friend to this case, he does not feel that it is one in which he can recommend the Prerogative to be used.
The hon. Member asked whether steps could be taken to prevent such a thing occurring in future. It is a little difficult to give any assurance of that kind, for this reason. It is admitted that it was a mistake and a misunderstanding on the part of the Clerk to the Justices, whose attention naturally has been called to the matter. The actual procedure now followed is the procedure under the Act of 1933. It is a little early to dogmatise as to whether that Act is going to be effective or not in all cases, but this is the first occasion on which any such incident has been brought to our notice, and, of course, if there were any likelihood of this recurring even once or twice, the matter would have to be reconsidered seriously. At the moment we have no reason to suppose otherwise than that it was just one of those cases of human error and fallibility to which all of us are prone. While we are naturally sorry at what has occurred, the fact remains that the man was tried, that the ordinary procedure of justice was carried out up to that point; and on full consideration my right hon. Friend proposes to leave the matter where it is, while being much obliged to the hon. Member for having called his attention to it.

11.19 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman? He will realise that the Crown is the fountain of justice and the fountain of mercy. One understands that everybody makes mistakes and in this case a mistake has been made by a servant of the Crown in the administration of justice. In these circumstances it is not a matter of examining the merits of the conviction in the first instance; it is a question of an obvious injustice as regards appeal rights having been caused by a mistake which everybody regrets. Inevitably there will be created in the mind of this man a permanent sense of injustice. He will be up against the whole system of justice in this country. If the right hon. Gentleman or I met with similar circumstances,
we should feel that the matter was entirely out of our control; we should always feel that, if we had only had the right of appeal, the conviction would have been wiped out. We should feel in that way if we were the appellants in the case. Surely this is just a case where the fountain of justice should be brought into play and the prerogative of mercy exercised—a case in which admittedly a mistake has been made by a servant of the administration of justice, which has materially altered the position of the person who was convicted. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it does not seem a matter in which we should weigh up whether or not the man would have been likely to win on appeal. He has definitely been deprived of a right, and somehow or other that should be wiped out so as to give him again the free chance that he might have had, even if it was only a small chance, of getting the conviction wiped out if he had gone to appeal. There is nothing more important in the administration of justice in this country than to create the
sense that justice has been done to the subject. It cannot do any harm in this case. It cannot form a precedent, unless, unfortunately, such a thing happens again, which we hope it will not. I beg the right hon. Gentleman for the sake of the good name of the administration of justice in this country, about which I care quite as much as he cares, that, having ascertained that this was a genuine and unavoidable mistake in the sense that all human beings make mistakes, and the individual having admittedly suffered by it, that he will not allow the man to have a sense of injustice all his life, and that he will, therefore, whatever the merits may be, wipe out the conviction and enable the man to start again. We hope and believe that because of this action the man would be all the better citizen of this country.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.